Anything a game lets you do is fair. If the devs don't like how their game behaves, they need to change it, not blame the user for what they did.
Yeah, there's that. The answer to the paradox is that these are different groups of people. I hate lootboxes and monetization of games is general, aside from an up-front price for a complete experience. (Good paid expansions down the road are fine too.) I don't like F2P. I do not play this game. But I can't understand all the complaints over cosmetic items, so I find myself in the odd position of defending it.
No justification is needed. The game is free. Playing it is free. You can't make it easier by spending money. The MTs are for vanity items. Play the game, on their dime. Don't spend yours. If enough vote with their wallets the same way, the prices will come down.
There are no pay-to-win mechanics in this game (at least not yet), right? It's truly free to play? While I personally don't like that business model, I don't see how any cosmetic MT pricing is inherently abusive or unfair. You get the game for free. You play it for free. By definition, you don't need cosmetic items at all. If the prices really are too high, the market will make it abundantly clear. Items that don't sell will get their prices lowered.
The game is "free"-to-play. Unlike full-priced games, I have no problems with MTs in F2P products. That's the only way they make money. Don't like them, don't play them. I don't play them at all. I don't support that business model; but clearly, many of you do. So take the bitter with the sweet.
Like any other cheat, it will never look as good as actual high-definition assets natively rendered at a high definition.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the corporation is God and we are its slaves. There's a balance to everything, a social contract even. (Oops! I used the word "social". Apologies if I offended you.) Corporations need to bring value to the society that hosts them, not the other way around. In exchange for the ability to make mountains of profits with the protection and infrastructure support of the nation, they need to abide by rules compatible with its principles and justice...
Being pro-fellow-man is not at all the same as socialism. I'm as conservative as it gets around here, and I think the balance is tipped way too far in favor of corporations. And no wonder, with a horrible Supreme Court decision like Citizens United, and corporations basically owning election finance.
Hyper-tapping. If you just hold down the left or right direction on the D-pad to move the pieces as they fall, it really is impossible.
A bit of counterpoint is in order.
https://thehumanist.com/mag...
I replied to this story over at the sister publication TechSpy. In short, DLSS is cheating, processing lower-res assets to look more detailed at the display res, like an upscaling filter in a 16-bit-console emulator. It can't possibly be as good as honest high-resolution assets properly rendered and anti-aliased. If performance suffers too much, I'd rather lower the display resolution, instead of introducing wonky artifacting and other weirdness.
Heheh. It's based on a certain heavyweight 12-letter curse word. Something to do with loving one of your parents too much.
Oh, there is a line. The US Copyright Office just cast a spotlight on it. Simple dance moves are not copyrightable. Only full choreography works are.
Why? They're not anyone's exclusive property. You can create a video or game with those dances, and monetize them if you want to. Everyone can.
There's a world of difference between copyright and a patent. Patents protect processes. (Alliteration unintended; but if it helps . . .) Copyright only protects specific published works. Hence, the limitations on the right to copy those specific works. A patent protects all instances of a process, not just copies of a particular work. So if these dance moves were by some perversion of justice patented, then these leeches might actually have legal claims. If JCVD actually patented ...
". . . the work submitted for registration is a simple dance routine . . . As such, it is not registrable as a choreographic work."
- The US Copyright Office
Period. End of story. The question has been asked and answered. Nothing else to see in all these ridiculous lawsuits over dance moves. Time to move along.
I would prefer not to pay more than $0. But I know some price points are unrealistic.
One site I checked placed the value of a 1993 dollar at $1.77 today, and another at $1.74. Let's call it a 75% numerical increase to keep things simple. That makes the $30 price of the original game come out to $52.50 today. So $60 for an enhanced remake doesn't seem so bad. Then again, will they actually charge that much? I haven't seen an MSRP announcement.
And then they recently, and fraudulently copyright-struck every parody video about that train wreck, leading inevitably to the Streisand effect. So I don't care about anything The Verge has to say right now. They're way in the dog house.
Right. It disheartens me to see so many here defending a ban for doing something the game allows you to do. Games set their rules internally. If Bethesda wants to change the de facto rules, they need to patch the game.