Quote from: Verbatim on July 09, 2018, 01:51:57 AM

Quote from: Jono on July 09, 2018, 01:49:50 AM

She has to like ACDC, Tarantino movies, Star Wars, and let me tell her naughty things

okay roman

I understand the want to have things in common with a potential partner, but I've found that the differences between people actually makes conversation more interesting. Like it's nice to have those points of similarity, but music taste and especially movie taste? I feel like there's nothing there that's a deal breaker really.

That's in response to both of you but I included Verb because I wanted his take on the subject.

i 100% agree

i do have my dealbreakers—enough to probably ensure that i'll never be in a relationship, which is fine—but i would never want someone who's just a carbon copy of myself and my interests

having different tastes from your partner gives you more shit to do, as long as you're both open-minded—like, if you LOVE star wars, imagine introducing it to someone for the first time and getting to watch it together, that would be fucking delightful

and in turn, maybe they can open your mind to some shit you've never taken seriously before

that always seemed like the most fun part of a relationship to me—having this symbiotic mutual thing where you help each other grow and mature and shit

Neither are you. You've already lost this argument.

But I'm destroying you effortlessly?

The difference is one is locked on the disc and the other is legitimate extra content.

That's not a good enough difference. The location of the content shouldn't matter, and according to you, the game is still complete anyway and game developers deserve to extort consumers because they don't make enough money. You're a hypocrite.

Yes, the exact same Mario games over and over are really innovative. Physics in games haven't been improved at all. What a joke lmao.

Nintendo makes more than just Mario games.

Physics in games haven't been improved at all, no. Not in any significant way that makes my jaw drop, which is what I want. I want my jaw to fucking drop every time I play a new game. That's the standard. If I'm not floored at any point by what a game has to offer, it's basically a waste of time.

Except it isn't. It's exactly what you said, enough content to justify almost a whole new game sold for half the price of a new game. It's how ODST should've been priced.

It's actually the exact opposite of what I said, if you were paying attention. 8 new missions is an expansion on the same game, therefore not worth it. Enough content to justify a new game is not just fucking missions. It's literally a new engine, new physics, new characters, a new story, new graphics, new locations, new weapons, new multiplayer maps, all built from the ground up. That's a new game. That's what I want, and if DLC is anything less than that, you're being stolen from and the developers should be rounded up and shot for trying to sell it.

Or, you know, I meant everywhere else I had checked locally in my area. Or how Amazon also routinely sells games for cheaper than retailers. It's never $60 across the board. If you're legit still paying $60 for a new game, you're getting shafted.

So you know you're wrong and it wasn't the norm. It's $60 across the board. Exceptions never count.

This is a bad analogy because museums are generally cheap or even free, as "art belongs to the people". Games are art, too, but you don't just look at them hanging on a wall. It's something you play, it's a product.

I don't care if they're cheap, you often have to pay money regardless. DLC should be free—I don't care if it's a $0.01, it's extortion either way.

It's normal enough to be included in any conversation about pizza.

Nope. It's extremely abnormal. Not even worth bringing up.

In any case, maybe refunds should be added for DLC in the way Steam does it.

Not "maybe." Definitely.

The problem is that people can reap in-game benefits from DLC, though, so they could do that and then return it. It's almost like the entire concept is for fucking morons on every level.

This is your own personal opinion, though. Because there are plenty of people who enjoy all toppings.

Which is why the comparison DOESN'T WORK, because everyone would appreciate having access to all the DLC, even if they weren't interested in some parts of it. There are all these costumes you can buy your every character in Street Fighter V that I'm never going to buy, because wow what an extreme waste of money that would be. If I suddenly had access to all of them, I would be pretty fucking stoked—even though I only play as two or three characters out of the 30 character roster, so I wouldn't even be using most of those costumes. But I'd be happy that I'm still getting the content that I (and everyone else) is 100% entitled to.

So a building built before the advent of elevators isn't complete even though it's literally complete and construction is finished. Right.

Yes

But you're not really a consumer. You just want free shit.

No, I'm just someone who's hyperconscious of the amounts of money I'm spending, and I'm always making sure that I'm getting every penny of my money's worth whenever I buy absolutely anything, because wasting money is for fucking morons.

I never pay full-price for games, obviously, but if I did, I'd want $60 worth of content. But too bad, because it is a FACT, not an opinion, that 99% of games don't have $60 worth of content in them. $60 is a week's worth of food, so if I'm buying a piece of entertainment with that much, it better be one fucking brilliant game.

It never is. Maybe once or twice a year, I'll play a game like that. And even then, I always get it on sale anyway.

You realize a full meal costs more than just a single burger, right?

Yes, because I want the full game. I don't want just the single player experience (the burger). I want the multiplayer experience, too (the multiplayer). Then I want the DLC (fries) which shouldn't be DLC at all, but content that's just in the game.

There was a time when developers didn't cut content from their games and tell consumers that they designed it later, so that they aren't morally culpable for extortion. Thanks for being so gullible.

If a burger costs $1 fries and a drink would cost more. You don't just get fries and drink for the price of one burger.

What the fuck are you even babbling about now, this has nothing to do with anything that I'm saying.

Because I'm talking my plight as a 7 year old consumer seeing my cousin have more content than me in a game we both have, and me being unable to ever get the content unless I buy a GameCube and SA2B. DLC would've remedied the problem and been much cheaper. That highly benefits the consumer.

DLC would not have remedied the problem at all. How would it have? You're still not getting content that you want. You have to pay for it.

Do you enjoy wasting money on absolute bullshit? If so, why should anyone take your opinions on anything seriously? Why shouldn't I ignore you and care more about smart people who don't like wasting their money?

You didn't, though. $60 covers just the base game.

No, it covers what they TELL you is the base game. There is literally no reason to trust them—and even if there was, the game is guaranteed not worth $60 and they're duplicitous shitheads for trying to steal from you like that to begin with. They're all liars.

You're not entitled to try every game in existence if you can't afford to. That's just life.

Again, yes I am entitled, because everyone is entitled. I would take the fall for everyone else. If I were forced to pay 1000x for DLC for the rest of my life, and everyone else in the world got it for free, I'd take the fall for everyone else. That's how entitled I am.

Pirating games is trash, these people barely make that much money as it is.

Let me play the world's smallest violin for all the poor little game developers who could've made money doing anything else with their computer science degrees.

😿

No argument, you know I'm right.

It's the worst way to live. People who think society owes them something are the worst.

They're the only people who know what they deserve.

Butthurt law doesn't apply to everything, and you only accept it because you're under the impression everything sucks and developers owe you free games.

Everything does suck, and I don't want free games. I'll pay for everyone else's games so THEY can have free games.

A man who is never taken seriously.

I have no interest in being taken seriously by fucking idiots.

You've just been throwing a temper tantrum.

Smart people throw temper tantrums.

Because it's extra content that is good.

Not good enough to pay extra money for. Impossible.

Quote from: Verbatim on July 08, 2018, 03:57:19 AM

Struck down two more bosses—no points for guessing which ones. Boss video soon.

Hint: I'm not going to be fighting Gwyndolin, as I have no intention of betraying my covenant.

It's all a lie verbatim

Regardless of whether the Blades are actually good or actually evil, it would be out of character at this point. Maybe during the Switch playthrough, I'll do things differently.

Nobody is stealing anything from you unless we're talking about disc locked content.

There's no difference. Being against disc-locked content doesn't make sense if you're not going to be against all DLC. It would've been regular-ass downloadable content anyway if it weren't locked to the disc, so what difference does it really make? It's all cancer, you can't pick and choose what you like.

Games are much more advanced these days, are you kidding me?

They're not, not in any impressive ways anymore. Knowing you, you only care about graphics or some shit. Graphics stopped being impressive a long time ago, and I'll go back to the 8-bit era for all I care about graphics. There's more to games than just that.

It cost me $1 but the regular price these days is $5, and when it was released it was $30. So pretty much half a game for the same rate. Seems fair to me. 8 missions, 4 new multiplayer maps, 2 new game modes and 9 new weapons.

Only if the missions are the only thing that has any value to you about the game, and nothing else. Which is foolish. That game isn't worth $60, maybe $25 at best. You were stolen from.

]Where are the publishers supposed to get money from if there's no money to be made from sales?

If they're a good publisher, they won't have to worry about that.

📸

Stupid, foolish, mental midget
Your IQ is double digit

It may be cheap but it's still a compete car.

>compete

📸

Also, no it isn't. It's a completely functioning car, but that doesn't mean anything. How much did you pay for it? Cars vary in terms of price, especially from dealer to dealer, and that's why they aren't comparable to video games. Because the market says they're all worth the same price (and therefore, have the same amount of value in content). Which is retarded.

You're really not missing out on anything, trust me.

I don't care. It could be the fucking shittiest and most disappointing DLC ever, and I won't care. I don't play games to have fun, I play them to experience art—and if some aspects of it are locked out, I'm not getting a complete picture of the painting, and I have every fucking right to be pissed off about it.

How would you like it if you visited the Louvre, but when you got to the Mona Lisa, you noticed they covered it up with a curtain. Your tour guide tells you that you aren't worthy to gaze upon this painting unless you pay an extra fee—you've already paid to visit this museum, and now you're being obliged to pay extra to see one more painting. Maybe not even the Mona Lisa—one entire section of the museum is sequestered off, and you only have access to it if you pay.

Would that be okay with you?

Plenty of people eat pizzas with all the toppings available. Try again.

No, they don't. Nobody. Maybe you do, because you're gross and fat or something, but no normal person does this.

Quote

If you don't like pineapple, you don't put it on your pizza. If it's on your pizza, you return it.

Then why the hell did you order all the toppings?

uhhhh

I didn't. Read that sentence again.

Quote

If you don't like a DLC, but you still have it because you bought the GOTY edition, you don't have to access it.

wtf? You paid for it anyways this doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense, and I have no idea what you're even struggling with. What I'm saying isn't hard.

Nope, extra. It's an addition. An expansion. If a building is expanded, it doesn't mean it wasn't a complete building before, it simply has had an expansion.

That building wasn't completed before.

You can't add to something if it's already finished. That's what the fucking word means. If you honestly expect to change my mind on this, you never ever will, so you might as well give up the ghost now if you SERIOUSLY think that you can change the definition of words that brutally. I get accused of doing the same thing, but never to that extent.

It's an expansion added after the fact. How many times do I need to say this?

You can say it 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000 more times, and it still won't make it a reality. I don't care if it's added after the fact. It's an unacceptable practice that should never be done.

No game is worth $60, so the fact that anyone should be expected to pay MORE than $60 for a complete game experience when most games aren't worth $30 is completely asinine, and what you're basically doing here is saying consumers should be relentlessly fucked for every nickle and dime they can swallow. And I'm supposed to agree with you. I'm supposed to love DLC and think it's this great thing.

You just did. You said "all the more reason to not fucking bother" when I said devs don't make a killing on DLC. So you admit they're not greedy.

Just because you don't make a lot of money doing something doesn't mean you can't be greedy. What kind of retarded shit is that?

So, again, why should all this stuff be free? Nobody owes you anything. They worked hard on the DLC, they deserved to be paid.

Nobody owes ME anything, not personally.

Every single player is owed the DLC, though, if they already paid full price for the game. It's not just about me.

In fact, I'll take the fall for my cause—all DLC should be free for EVERYONE except for me. I'll vow to pay for every DLC from this point on if it means that everyone can have it for free tomorrow. Now you can't play this retarded "you're so entitled" game, as if being entitled is at all a bad thing. It's GOOD to be entitled.

But no, they do deserve to be paid. For the base game. Which I did already.
 

>less content = better
😂

Yes. Less content = less money being extorted = objectively better. Yes.

Sorry I don't look at the past through rose tinted glasses. It sure was awesome that my cousin had more content in Sonic Adventure 2 because he had the GameCube version. Content I couldn't access because I had it on the Dreamcast and there was no DLC.

Whatever, that game is booboo buttcheeks anyway.

Then you're conflating the two. Paying for DLC isn't tipping. It's paying for the meal.

LMAO

No, paying for the base game is paying for the meal. DLC is like having to pay for refills.

That's ridiculous. In this modern age where you can find entire playthroughs of a game on YouTube. Come on man.

It's not the same, I have to play it for myself. It's not like a movie, where I can see a clip and see if it looks interesting to me. Games are interactive, and if I can't interact with it, then I don't really know what the game is like.

Most of my favorite games probably looked uninteresting as fuck to me when I first saw gameplay of them. It was only until I played it for myself that I realized how awesome they actually were.

You're right, I should just hack Microsoft and get the DLC for free. I shouldn't ever have to pay people for things they make and are selling.

Probably

Or just don't buy shitty DLC and shit like gun skins.

It's all shit. If you're saying I can judge it all without playing it myself, then I'm judging it by not playing it myself.

It's all shit, and you're all fucking stupid for buying into it.

If you look at any movement ever, extremists almost always end up failing.

They fail, but they succeed in spreading the meme. The game isn't to succeed, that would be a waste of life. There are better hills to die on.

Unless it's a shitty game you're getting $60 worth of content.

And 90% of games are shitty.

The 10% of games that aren't shitty don't have $60 worth of content, either. Maybe $50 tops.

Then there's the magic 0.001% of games that really are worth $60, or above and beyond that.

You can't base the industry on outliers like this.

I have played a ton of games worth that much where I get hundreds of hours of enjoyment.

That's because you're not a discerning consumer, and you're not interested in games as an art form. You're just in it to have fun. You're the consumer that the industry wants.

My main point has always been that DLC in and of itself is not a bad thing.

If it were all free, I'd agree with you.

You can know. Just look up gameplay and ask people.

Do you really think I can trust anyone's fucking shit-ass opinions on fucking anything? You serious?

You get full games. Acting like you're entitled to extra content the developers make after the game is finished, and that it should be free, is ridiculous.

I am entitled to extra content, because without it, I'm not getting a full game.

This is why I said don't bother to argue with me on this. I haven't budged an inch, and I'm only ever going to double down on this. I know I'm right, I know everyone else is wrong. Nothing will change. You're wasting your time and fucking up my thread.

Back in the Poison Swamp for reasons. I did not miss this place.

It depends on what you define as killing off everything. If by that we mean to kill of every single person, animal or plant, we can just continuosly nuke same place over and over again until our nukes reach magnetic core of Earth and disrupt it, which cause magnetic field of Earth to dissapear and everything to die from radiation sooner or later, well almost everything. Some things will survive and adapt to new conditions. It`s however, a temporary solution, it probably be enough to put our planet down long enough until Sun explode or whatever happens to it.

Well, we might create a black hole, but it`s unreliable solution either, because no one knows how it works. I can only say that living or being in it, if it`s possible, will be different from your or any other human definition of word "living" or "being" so that accomplishes goal of destroying everything living.

Nukes/black holes are a little too violent and scary for my liking—my ideal apocalypse is quiet, peaceful, painless.

I see another logic inconsistency - you are proposing us veganism, main purpose of which is to save animals and the next thing you say is that it`s better to kill everything. Well, then I really don`t see any other reason for this thread to exist outside of "the sake of argument", "simulation purposes", where you try to attain higher moral ground over people who aren`t vegans and thats basically a hypocrisy.

I don't see how it's a hypocrisy, if you could explain that for me.

While I do believe that life is better off not existing, I still have to come to terms with the fact it does exist.

The best thing about life is that it is possible to change it for the better. So, while I'd prefer life not to exist at all, it can't be helped—the next best thing for me to try to do, then, is to do my part in spreading the word about all the things I believe will make the world a better place to live in.

Right now, I just have two rules—1.) Don't have kids, and 2.) Go vegan. Everything else is fairly self-explanatory. Be honest, treat people how you wanna be treated, obey the laws of your country, etc.

It's not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism. I realize I'm not going to get what I want out of this life, so I work with what I have.

No, it's that you act like the world is either complete trash or it has to be a utopia.

Anything less than utopia is trash, but that's not the point. You seem to think we're closer to that utopia than I do, when we're not. Close enough to be okay with being swindled and stolen from.

Agreed, devs should have much larger profit margins.

And games should either be less expensive to make, or developers should be pressured less to make expensive games. Fuck "pushing the envelope," the envelope hasn't been pushed since the '90s. Games fucking suck today. DLC is only a small part of the problem.

My point being you're blaming the devs when it's usually Activision and Microsoft pushing this shit.

Delightful, so fuck Activision and Microsoft for pushing this shit. Nothing else changes.

Quote

How many mission campaigns were in the base game of the first Ghost Recon?

15 I think

And how much did they cost you?

Who the hell is gonna pay them, then? Are they supposed to just get money for free? They have to make and sell their product, that's how it works.

The publisher, fucking obviously. It's not ever going to happen, but it's what needs to happen regardless.

So developers have found a way to make more money because game sales really don't make them that much. How horrible.

Extremely horrible. I'll never support it again, and fuck anyone who does.

Except it takes a big budget to push the envelope.

No it doesn't, not at all. The most biggest envelope pushers in the industry are indies and Nintendo. No one else has ever pushed the envelope. We've, by and large, been getting the same shit since the mid-2000s. Hardly anyone is innovating anymore in the AAA industry.

You can make a great game for a few hundred bucks, but it's the same tired old 2D adventure. It gets old.

Not if your IQ is high enough

"I'm fine with thousands of people being out of work and a thriving industry dying because some price adjustments need to be made"

Yeah

Except it's a complete game. A car is complete when it's built, seat warmers and Bluetooth capabilities are extras.

Who's to say a car is complete without those things? Cup holders were considered a cushy luxury at one point. Now, if a new car doesn't have any cup holders, it's considered a cheap piece of shit. Incomplete.

Bad analogy, again. It's not a complete game without the DLC. I'll never get the complete Dark Souls experience unless I buy the DLC, and that pisses me the fuck off.

That's your opinion. Plenty of people like pizzas with a lot of toppings.

I didn't say "a lot" of toppings, I said EVERY topping. No one realistically does this, and this is why this is a shitty analogy too. It's not a logical equivalent, because there's NO ONE who would be displeased with having all DLC available to them.

If you don't like pineapple, you don't put it on your pizza. If it's on your pizza, you return it.

If you don't like a DLC, but you still have it because you bought the GOTY edition, you don't have to access it.

DLC is an extra.

An extra that makes the game incomplete without it.

I'm going to design a game halfway, sell it to you for $60, and then sell you the other half for $30. And you'll buy it, apparently, because that's how gullible you apparently are. I'll even tell you that the DLC was designed well after the game was already """finished.""" And you'll take my word for it, because you're a genius.

But you still fail to refute even the most basic point I've made, that DLC's are extras and not necessary.

I vigorously refuted it with great strength, and smashed it up with my huge, throbbing, vascular verbal musculature.

They're 100% necessary, especially if you want to complete the game.

So you admit it isn't about greed.

I never admitted that.

Why would I pester you to buy the DLC if I know you can't afford it?

It's not that I can't afford it. It's that I shouldn't have to pay for it, even if I were wealthier than Bill Gates.

Back in the day we just probably would've never had the content.

And that was better. Way better.

wtf nigga we're the same age

You're not acting like it. You're acting like a dumb Gen Z-er who never knew how much better things used to be.

You are paying for the work the chef does, the rent, the cost of upkeep, payroll, everything. That's what goes into pricing the food at a restaurant.

I'm not talking about the pricing of the food. I'm talking about tipping.

No it isn't smart. Don't buy bad DLC that's overpriced. Good DLC is a way for us to get more content they'll never make and put in the game before launch.

How the fuck am I supposed to know what's good or bad until I pay for it and play it first? You realize that's fucking impossible, right? You can look up reviews and ask your friends and try to use your best judgment, but sometimes, that's just not good enough. You could be missing out on the best gaming experience of your life, and I'll never be able to experience it because I'm not willing to pay extra for content that should already be in the goddamn game itself.

You act like you're being screwed out of something. You're not.

I textbook am.

No, I shouldn't be, because that's childish behavior. I'm a victim of what lmao?

Extortion, and you should be more pissed about it than me, because you've paid for more DLC garbage.

A lot of us saw this coming. There's just a lot of people who seem to have no problem with microtransactions.

And they should be mauled by tigers, probably.

I agree. But there's not really anything we can do.

Do what I do. I don't expect to change anything, but I'm not going to sit quietly and just accept this practice. Ever. I'm going to bitch and piss and moan for the rest of my life about it if I have to, and I'll be happy doing it. It's my right.

There's no need to be an extremist.

People like you are why I have to be extreme. If no one else sees it your way, you have to be extreme. That's the only way the meme can truly spread.

Proof?

It's an axiomatic truth, there's no proof required. Extra content that must be paid extra for is basically extortion. There's literally no good or acceptable way to go about it.

Complete what? What is this obsession with completion?

The game.

It's not an obsession, it's me wanting exactly what the fuck I paid for. A complete game, with ALL of its content available to me. If I paid $60, I want $60 worth of content. Period.

No game on the market in the last twelve years has been worth $60. Not a single goddamn one, and you're a moron if you think otherwise. Taking DLC into account might have actually made some games worth that much, but when you buy DLC, you no longer just paid $60. You paid $70, or $80, or $100—all for content that only really amounts to $60 on a good day.

Most games aren't worth $10 even with all the DLC. If you pay more, you are wasting your money.

No, that's bullshit. But it doesn't mean video games should be nuked.

Why is that bullshit? I'm not entitled to all the game's content, apparently. You're backpedaling.

Why shouldn't I be nickled and dimed over every little possible thing in the game? I don't HAVE to buy it, after all.

It doesn't make the game incomplete, after all. Right? Right?

I'm telling you to buy good DLC.

I can't know if it's good unless I buy it and try it myself. That's the fucking trick. It's not like when I buy ten apples, and I receive exactly ten apples, so I couldn't possibly be dissatisfied. A game's quality is a lot more nuanced than that.

They're not, they're just trying to make some money like everybody else. Waiting until they can make another game (if they even get the go ahead and the funding) is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? I don't want DLC, I want full games. That's all I want for the rest of time.

You're ignoring that there is no magical button though.

It's nothing that couldn't be invented.

The logical inconsistency seems to lie in you basing all of this on respect for agency and an aversion of suffering, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with imposing (or ignoring) suffering and violating and killing untold amounts of animals because you're the superior creature who gets to decide how they're treated.

Of course—do you not think parents should have some degree of control over their children's behavior? Sometimes you have to override someone's agency for the greater good. Again, there is no inconsistency here. I'm not expressing anything I haven't expressed for years upon years.

Life is bad because it comes with suffering. You can reduce the suffering of billions of creatures by taking some control of their agency. But doing so and not respecting them is bad from a moral point of view. Since you're telling me they can't live a purposeful life (something you're deciding for that animal) you advocate killing them all which not only causes suffering but also violates their autonomy in the most significant way and goes directly against their deepest and most fundamental desire.

Their deepest and most fundamental desire is to copulate and reproduce, not to live. No animal wants to "live." They just don't want to die. They don't understand why they don't want to die (or why they'd be better off dead). They're just running a primitive biological script that tells them that dying is bad, survival is good. For what reason? There is no reason. So, we could pointlessly maintain their pitiful, pointless, joyless existences to make ourselves feel moral, but the reality is that most factory-bred animals wouldn't well appreciate it. A lot of them live in squalor, are missing body parts, are severely overweight, or have various other debilitating conditions. They may not want to die, but they certainly don't want to suffer, either. But they are suffering. And you want to maintain it for some reason, with bizarre pathos-based reasoning.

I'm also puzzled by what you imagine a purposeful life would be like for an animal.

That's what I'm asking you. So are you retracting this silly statement you made?

"Killing millions of them off doesn't seem very humane or fair especially when they can lead pretty normal and 'fulfilling' lives by the standards of animals like them."

There is no fulfilled life without purpose.

So what do we do with the ones that live now? Set them free, something which will likely cause more suffering than just treating them properly for the rest of their lives? Kill off healthy animals with years left to live, something which will violate them more gravely than anything else? Seems like no matter the choice, you're going against a core aspect of your philosophy.

But I'm not. A core aspect of my philosophy is that we're all better off dead. On a different timeline, I might have been a mad scientist working to create a doomsday button.

"Healthy animals with years left to live" to do WHAT, exactly? And they aren't healthy, by the way. Try doing some research. Hell, you don't even need research. Look up any factory farm, take a cursory glance at the animals and the conditions they're "living" in, and then think really hard about what a ridiculous statement you just made.

I guess that logical inconsistency I see is that you advocate killing them all (which violates, disrespects and harms the animals and their agency/autonomy)

No it doesn't.

because you think they can't have any sort of purposeful life anyways (which is kind of your own speciest argument where we get to do whatever we want and treat these creatures in any way because we're superior and get to decide what's worthwhile or right/wrong for them).

We're not the ones deciding what's right or wrong for them. You can't even decide that for yourself, because morality is objective. It's not a whim-based decision, it's a responsibility based on raw logic.

Reality sucks, therefore let's get the fuck out of here. Basic stuff.

It's not a meaningful example speciesism, because I'm trying to save the animals by delivering them from the shittiest world imaginable. If anything, that's speciesist against humans, because we'd still be here.

Otherwise, parenting children should be considered ageism to you now. Not only is it ageism, it is a meaningful example of ageism. Children should be able to run free with no guidance whatsoever, is what you're basically trying to say.

Killing them violates their autonomy and puts you in a position of superiority enforcing your views on the animal. Setting them free will cause mayhem and enormous amounts of pain, fear and suffering for millions of creatures. Perhaps letting them live on in humane conditions and continue being milked/shaved is both less of an invasion of their agency and overall causes them a lower amount of suffering.

Yes, yes, perhaps delaying the inevitable makes us look more moral without actually being so. Yes, yes. Quite.

Don't put them out of their misery now. Wait until after they've suffered intensely for a few more years in an utterly pointless, unfulfilling, and unhappy existence. Yes, very rational. Very fair. Very humane.

Verbatim never has any real solution apart from kill everybody and everything.

mainly because there is no other solution

hope Croatia wins tomorrow

really why what's gonna happen

Dude it's a fucking video game about a magic zombie jailbreak. It's not that serious.

theft is a pretty serious crime actually

you're certainly not one to talk about taking video games too seriously either

I'm not going to have a discussion with you when you're just playing devil's advocate. People that believe this are dumbasses. Everybody deserves to be able to make a living, THAT'S life.

Only I'm going a step further than you and saying that the concept of a "living" shouldn't exist. The fact that it does it the real problem. If you want to step into the world of art, don't come in with dollar signs in your eyes. Otherwise, what you're making barely qualifies as art, and there's absolutely no chance of me ever supporting anything you do or create. And if I do, it was because I was duped, because that's the game developers have to play in our capitalist system.

How is the consumer being screwed? If it's good DLC that's priced fairly, what's the problem? "Preying" on dumbass people who buy gun skins is a myth and the only people to blame are the consumers. Why shouldn't people make money off of stupidity?

Because it's immoral as fuck. You can't just take advantage of people like that and call yourself a good, honest person who deserves to make money doing what he loves.

Name a good DLC that is priced fairly. None exist, only what you thought was worth it. It probably wasn't, especially if it was more than $5.

We absolutely do need entertainment. That's how life works. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you do and wanting to make money, too. It's a product, why should it be exempt from having monetary value because it's art?

Because it shouldn't be your primary focus. It shouldn't even be your secondary focus. If an artist were told that he could never make money off of his art again, a true artist wouldn't be discouraged by that. He'd continue making art, because that's what he does.

Most game developers would quit, and those who would quit are the ones I don't want in the industry anyway. And if the industry would die without those people, then so be it. Fuck it all, let's just build a new industry off of independent game developers and hobbyists. I've been looking into playing some indie games anyway.

Because a cheeseburger is just that, meat, cheese, and buns. Pickles are basically DLC.

You just repeated yourself. I don't buy the analogy, come up with something different. Food and video games are way too different, because people are going to have different ideas of what they want to have on their cheeseburger.

If I want a plain cheeseburger, then the plain cheeseburger I get is what I paid for. That's the completed product. If they add extra shit I don't want, then I'm returning it. Likewise, if I actually DO want extra shit, and they forget the pickles or whatever the fuck, then they sold me an incomplete product.

When I buy a game, I'm under the impression that I'm going to be able to play the entire experience. And to me, if DLC doesn't come with, then it's not complete. How could it be? There's several hours worth of content that I'm missing out on, that I can't play, unless I pay extra. That's so fucking stupid.

Where do you draw the line? There has to be a point where you realize the game isn't complete without the DLC.

I draw the line at DLC, because any other line you draw is going to be completely arbitrary and based on personal whim. What's so bad about releasing a complete game with no DLC? What's wrong with that? Why can't they just do that? Why do they need more money out of me?

Wow ok Tarantino. Hahaha come on dude that's not even the point. I agree devs should make more profits but it has nothing to do with DLC being free or not, because the profit margins aren't all that different.

It's the point for me, I'm not terribly interested in whatever your point is honestly. Find another fucking job if you don't think you're getting paid enough, because I'm not paying you extra. I shouldn't have to, so I never fucking will, from the day I posted that forward. And if people are smart, they'll follow suit.

So a game on launch day is incomplete even if DLC hasn't been announced?

Correct, and that's been the model for the past twelve-odd years. Games stopped being completed the moment the first ever DLC was created.

Remember when Oblivion's horse armor came out, and everyone hated it and thought it was the stupidest fucking waste of money ever? That's been normalized. People eat that shit up, now. It's not just accepted, but highly encouraged.

No, the golden years were when you could buy a game for the PS2 and you'd never have to pay anything extra for it. A quick $50 payment for some game, like Ratchet & Clank, and you had to pay for fuck else. And you had the entire game, right there in your hands. You never had to worry about playing anything else, except for sequels, but if you liked the game enough, you're gonna buy the next one anyway. And you know it's gonna be worth it, because it's a whole new game.

Now everything is fucked. You're lucky if you're not spending $100 on a game you're into just to make sure you're not missing any of the extra content. Absolutely unacceptable.

you first OP

Quote from: Verbatim on July 06, 2018, 04:19:14 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on July 06, 2018, 03:56:38 AM

Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?

nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible

i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary

how do you feel about free range chickens for eggs?

i feel like "free range" in general is a meme used to obfuscate what actually goes on, just to reassure people and make them feel like they're not actually doing anything unethical

good article on the subject that will be disregarded as biased and non-factual

Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?

nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible

i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary