Being a jerk. (Destiny)

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Friday, January 31, 2020, 09:04 (1489 days ago) @ cheapLEY

Now, if you're saying MY not particularly oblique reference was unwarranted, that's another thing, but then again, not everybody takes that reference as being pejorative, so who is to say?

I assume that's what he meant, honestly. I take all the stuff you said above to heart, really. In fact, I already conceded that before you even posted. The issue was already settled--at what point are you just being a jerk by continuing to harp on it?

If Claude's going to say my remark was unwarranted I think I'm entitled to respond. Because he's saying I shouldn't have said it, and I don't think that's right. (He's entitled to say it, of course, but I do think I can answer.)

I object to the idea that if someone says something, and then retracts it, that it's no longer valid to respond to the original statement. Not everyone disagrees in the same way, and sometimes people just want to stand up and say "I also feel this way about things" for people to understand they are not alone in how they perceive situations.

I don't consider these kinds of interactions as games in which we keep score, in which case it's not valid to attempt to "score" against an argument because it has already been retracted. To do so is to admit to a specific kind of bad-faith argument where one advances an extreme position only to retract it and settle on a middle ground as a way of changing opinions by exploiting people's desire to avoid conflict.

The industry as a whole is moving in a negative direction by attempting to price game content a la carte so they can get more money from some people without sacrificing involvement from those who can only afford to pay less (or nothing) while simultaneously continuing to squeeze more work out of artists, programmers, designers and others in the industry who don't have meaningful participation in the ever-increasing profits being made by publishers. They do this despite the knowledge that monetization strategies employ similar tactics to those used in exploiting people with gambling problems, and accept this as collateral damage that is acceptable while seeking more revenue.

Most of these tactics are developed, deployed and promoted by publishers, but they are pushed down to and internalized by developers.

Bungie may well have been, up to this point, either the least bad or one of the least bad examples of developers and publishers using these tactics. I feel that the inclusion of a core gameplay mechanic item (a weapon) in the context of a non-gameplay related reward that is available strictly for cash is a step towards, possibly the last step towards, a situation in which this is a distinction without difference, and I sincerely oppose those who would attempt to normalize this by wondering aloud who should, or even would, care about this.

This is not the world domination I signed up for.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread