Ugh, you can now buy SUROS Regime with real money

https://www.bungie.net/en/News/Article/48663

Are we P2W yet?

locked

2424 views

If your plan is to dominate Destiny by subscribing to Twitch Prime for a Suros Regime drop, that's not a very good plan.

locked

2292 views

But again for the slow folks at the back. YOU CAN NOW PAY REAL MONEY FOR A NON-COSMETIC IN-GAME BENEFIT WITH A REAL GAMEPLAY ADVANTAGE

locked

2248 views

But again for the slow folks at the back. YOU CAN NOW PAY REAL MONEY FOR A NON-COSMETIC IN-GAME BENEFIT WITH A REAL GAMEPLAY ADVANTAGE

Some said this day would never come. But not me!

locked

2281 views

But again for the slow folks at the back. YOU CAN NOW PAY REAL MONEY FOR A NON-COSMETIC IN-GAME BENEFIT WITH A REAL GAMEPLAY ADVANTAGE

Some said this day would never come. But not me!

What are they to say now?

locked

2237 views

"Hail Corporate"

locked

2244 views

Being able to buy a gun that you can only obtain through RNG otherwise affects the competitive playing field of Destiny zero percent.

Each season has exotics and other gear you can only get if you actually buy the season. Is that also pay to win?

locked

2263 views

Each season has exotics and other gear you can only get if you actually buy the season. Is that also pay to win?

Yeah, pretty much. This example's just a little worse because you get the gear up front without having to put any time in (as far as I can tell, anyway).

locked

2238 views

Whether or not you take issue or believe this is an issue, this is still a reductive argument. You're completely dismissive of the issue based entirely on one present example; this is still the crossing of a line that many have drawn in the sand. It still warrants discussion even if the line was only crossed by a pinky toe.

locked

2243 views

Sure. I’m not dismissing the argument. I’m just saying I don’t give a shit.

You’re not really buying a gun in Destiny. You’re buying a twitch prime membership and that happens to allow you to get a gun in Destiny. It’s not really the same thing.

In the grand scheme of “what’s wrong with Destiny?” I don’t even think this clears the top ten.

locked

2237 views

- No text -

locked

2216 views

- No text -

locked

2191 views

Are you going to go the extra mile and make sure to tell everyone that my opinion is just an opinion, too?

locked

2243 views

Are you going to go the extra mile and make sure to tell everyone that my opinion is just an opinion, too?

Er, no? Why would I do that? Seems like an odd thing to say.

locked

2262 views

I legitimately have to question your intelligence if you take me not caring to mean that I wish to enforce that opinion on anyone else.

locked

2253 views

You didn't say "I dont care".

You said "who cares?", which is specific language implying that caring about this is wrong and in some way stupid and/or pointless, to the point where you are in such an insignificant minority as to be trivial. Right next to (but a shade less aggressive than) "Nobody Cares". At least where Im from.

Words Mean Things.

locked

2254 views

Fair enough.

I guess I assumed people would understand that's it just a needlessly sarcastic way to say "I don't give a shit."

locked

2239 views

- No text -

locked

2250 views

People are going to buy a twitch membership for this.

You know it. I know it. And most importantly, Bungie and Twitch know it.

I'd be fascinated to hear what your real top ten is if "selling non-cosmetic microtransactions" isnt on there.

locked

2243 views

People are going to buy a twitch membership for this.

Well, that would be dumb, because what you need is an Amazon Prime membership. (The Twitch membership comes free with that, but that's what you need to buy.)

And I really, really, REALLY doubt anyone's gonna buy a $12.99/month Amazon Prime membership SOLELY for the goodies you get from Twitch Prime.

locked

2234 views

It's even a discount vs buying all of the cosmetics separately. Ridiculously.

locked

2232 views

It's even a discount vs buying all of the cosmetics separately. Ridiculously.

It is a total of 24 items (4 items per month, 6 months), 6 of which are weapons. That leaves 18 cosmetics, at a total cost (if you don't already have Prime) of $65. Many (all?) of those cosmetics aren't even purchasable (they're year 1/2 stuff, they ONLY drop from bright dust engrams).

I guess if you COULD buy them, though, $65 would be less than buying them separately, going by similar (though newer) items currently available.

Seems like a pretty big stretch to me, though. And I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of folks who have the $65 needed to do what you're suggesting already have Amazon Prime. :)

locked

2238 views

Based on current prices, a months sub for 3 cosmetics is cheaper than comparable cosmetics now. Its a pretty okay deal, if you're a discount-hunter.

I'm not really sure what the point of contention is here? Not trying to be difficult or combative, I'm just a bit lost.

locked

2225 views

Based on current prices, a months sub for 3 cosmetics is cheaper than comparable cosmetics now. Its a pretty okay deal, if you're a discount-hunter.

I'm not really sure what the point of contention is here? Not trying to be difficult or combative, I'm just a bit lost.

I'm not trying to be combative either - I just don't see it the same way you see it. The cosmetics being offered are NOT purchasable through Eververse right now - but you WILL get them as random drops from engrams earned by playing. I guess I'm saying that that particular class of item is not really comparable to stuff you can buy for money. (That is: it's not as though you can say "well, I could buy these three items in the store for $X, or get them free with a $13 monthly fee for Twitch Prime. Seems like a great deal to me.")

You're comparing apples to oranges (literally; two different items in the same class (cosmetics/fruit), but not really equivalent).

::shrug::

If this crosses a line for you (and it seems to), that's fine. You're certainly doing your part at making your case to the forum at large.

It doesn't cross a line for me, and I guess I'm unswayed by your argument (though I CAN see where it's coming from, I just don't agree with it).

locked

2223 views

Based on current prices, a months sub for 3 cosmetics is cheaper than comparable cosmetics now. Its a pretty okay deal, if you're a discount-hunter.

I'm not really sure what the point of contention is here? Not trying to be difficult or combative, I'm just a bit lost.

I'm not trying to be combative either

Oh I know. I only say that because I know I hve a rep ;)

- I just don't see it the same way you see it. The cosmetics being offered are NOT purchasable through Eververse right now - but you WILL get them as random drops from engrams earned by playing. I guess I'm saying that that particular class of item is not really comparable to stuff you can buy for money. (That is: it's not as though you can say "well, I could buy these three items in the store for $X, or get them free with a $13 monthly fee for Twitch Prime. Seems like a great deal to me.")

As a bargainy type person, I definitely had a moment of "ooh, if they were selling these it would cost $20+, thats a bargain". Now obviously I'm not the ur-human representative of everyone, but Im fairly confident that I'm at least somewhat representative of "slightly autistic collector people".

It does also take those items out of your free engram loot pool (the ornaments at least, not sure about the ghosts though Ive never had a repeat. Not the shops though), which is an additional selling point to me.

You're comparing apples to oranges (literally; two different items in the same class (cosmetics/fruit), but not really equivalent).

::shrug::

If this crosses a line for you (and it seems to), that's fine. You're certainly doing your part at making your case to the forum at large.

Honestly, this being a good deal (imo) doesn't cross a line. It's practically consumer-forward (inasmuch as this ecosystem can be). Its only the SUROS that makes me clutch at my pearls. I was more commenting on the bizzare notion that $15 for three cosmetics can be considered "a good deal". Cosmetics are far too expensive.

locked

2202 views

Out of 24 items 9 are on a knockout. 3 are Exotic Weapons from the world pool, 3 are paired ornaments with those weapons (exactly how Two-Tailed Fox worked) and 3 are Emotes. The 15 remaining items were/are repeatable drops.

None of the weapons are meta, and all the perks for Ghosts and Sparrows are already available to other players, often in better packages.

locked

2194 views

Based on current prices, a months sub for 3 cosmetics is cheaper than comparable cosmetics now. Its a pretty okay deal, if you're a discount-hunter.

I'm not really sure what the point of contention is here? Not trying to be difficult or combative, I'm just a bit lost.

I'm not trying to be combative either - I just don't see it the same way you see it. The cosmetics being offered are NOT purchasable through Eververse right now - but you WILL get them as random drops from engrams earned by playing. I guess I'm saying that that particular class of item is not really comparable to stuff you can buy for money. (That is: it's not as though you can say "well, I could buy these three items in the store for $X, or get them free with a $13 monthly fee for Twitch Prime. Seems like a great deal to me.")

It's a weapon, an ornament, a ghost, and a ship.

The fact that *those particular ones* are *not currently for sale* is sort of outside the point. You can absolutely assign a cash value to the items and compare that to the subscription cost of Amazon/Twitch Prime.

You're comparing apples to oranges (literally; two different items in the same class (cosmetics/fruit), but not really equivalent).

::shrug::

If this crosses a line for you (and it seems to), that's fine. You're certainly doing your part at making your case to the forum at large.

It doesn't cross a line for me, and I guess I'm unswayed by your argument (though I CAN see where it's coming from, I just don't agree with it).

This absolutely does cross a line, and while I'm not particularly fond of slippery slope arguments, if the position now is "well, it IS a gameplay item, but it's not good enough to be an advantage" then I think the whole thing is just gone. I don't think the gameplay vs cosmetic distinction was meaningful, and this just destroys that utterly.

locked

2261 views

If the argument is that it is a “gameplay item” and doesn’t take into account context then this isn’t some change to be wringing ones hands over as ghosts and sparrows it’s just the same thing since EV was initially introduced into the game.

locked

2209 views

Your argument is "Its fine because we were already in a post-cosmetic dystopian nightmare"?

That's some impressive mental acrobatics.

locked

2203 views

No, I’ve made my arguments elsewhere. That was simply that getting uniquely upset about it now is absurd.

locked

2192 views

- No text -

locked

2193 views

It's a weapon, an ornament, a ghost, and a ship.

The fact that *those particular ones* are *not currently for sale* is sort of outside the point. You can absolutely assign a cash value to the items and compare that to the subscription cost of Amazon/Twitch Prime.

Well, ackchually ::pushes glasses up nose:: all 24 items have been datamined at this point, and all of them are in a pool of items that are no longer sold at eververse (and haven't been for quite some time).

But yeah, I suppose that not only can you put a value on them and compare that value to the cost of Amazon Prime, you could make the argument that if you didn't have those items, and WANTED them, buying them this way is the most efficient way to get them.

I linked my Amazon account to my Twitch account (free), just to get this stuff, even though I have this stuff. I received a few shards and some glimmer in exchange (because I had all of these items already). For 30 seconds of work, it was a fair trade for me. I'm not complaining.

locked

2207 views

It's a weapon, an ornament, a ghost, and a ship.

The fact that *those particular ones* are *not currently for sale* is sort of outside the point. You can absolutely assign a cash value to the items and compare that to the subscription cost of Amazon/Twitch Prime.

Well, ackchually ::pushes glasses up nose:: all 24 items have been datamined at this point, and all of them are in a pool of items that are no longer sold at eververse (and haven't been for quite some time).

But yeah, I suppose that not only can you put a value on them and compare that value to the cost of Amazon Prime, you could make the argument that if you didn't have those items, and WANTED them, buying them this way is the most efficient way to get them.

I linked my Amazon account to my Twitch account (free), just to get this stuff, even though I have this stuff. I received a few shards and some glimmer in exchange (because I had all of these items already). For 30 seconds of work, it was a fair trade for me. I'm not complaining.

I don't like that they're "selling" exotics. I might get more upset if I played the PVP modes more often and someone could buy a weapon that consistently gave them an advantage over me. The context that is downplayed is that in Destiny there was always the potential for someone to have some godroll that gave them an advantage. In a game such as this that balances so many variables, one exotic properly balanced isn't going to affect game outcomes, and that's the bottom line.

I haven't looked into the details of this offer but the price-comparison stuff isn't persuasive to me. There's much that goes into the valuation of something. How much of the player base already has it? What's included in the price? Isn't this just a sweetener to build up twitch's base? As so, how can you say what the price of the item is? An economist might have a forumla (and I'm not one), but I just don't see this mattering, except on some abstract level of argument. Are reaction videos of people getting their suros trending on YouTube? At this point it's a cool gun for any who have not gotten it, but that subset of players isn't going affect to other players. It's day-old bread given away with purchase.

locked

2204 views

I haven't looked into the details of this offer but the price-comparison stuff isn't persuasive to me. There's much that goes into the valuation of something. How much of the player base already has it? What's included in the price?

light.gg doesn't show you the WHOLE Destiny userbase, but it's a pretty decent representative sample. From its Suros page:

[image]

locked

2188 views

Where exactly does light.gg get its numbers?

Also, anywhere that rounds less than 100% to 100% is questionable at best.

locked

2200 views

Where exactly does light.gg get its numbers?

I'm assuming from some combination of its visitors and the Bungie API.

Also, anywhere that rounds less than 100% to 100% is questionable at best.

Did you find something on their site that suggests they round up? I've seen "99.9%" in that circle, for other items, so I know that if there's a round-up, it's less than a 10th of one percent... but I have no evidence that 100% doesn't mean 100% in this case. Do you?

locked

2175 views

Where exactly does light.gg get its numbers?

I'm assuming from some combination of its visitors and the Bungie API.

Also, anywhere that rounds less than 100% to 100% is questionable at best.

Did you find something on their site that suggests they round up? I've seen "99.9%" in that circle, for other items, so I know that if there's a round-up, it's less than a 10th of one percent... but I have no evidence that 100% doesn't mean 100% in this case. Do you?

If that is the case, their numbers cannot possibly be a reliable reflection of Destiny players. So either way, it's pretty weak supporting evidence.

locked

2204 views

It seems entirely believable to me that "the group of Destiny players who care enough to link their accounts to light.gg" would overlap completely with "the group of Destiny players who have spent enough time and effort to obtain all base Destiny exotics"

locked

2152 views

I don't think it's at all representative of Destiny Players, and entirely representative of Destiny Hobbyists.

locked

2173 views

People are going to buy a twitch membership for this.

Well, that would be dumb, because what you need is an Amazon Prime membership. (The Twitch membership comes free with that, but that's what you need to buy.)

And I really, really, REALLY doubt anyone's gonna buy a $12.99/month Amazon Prime membership SOLELY for the goodies you get from Twitch Prime.

That's.. kinda not the point, though, is it?

We can chip in and buy CheapLEY an "I don't care, do u" shirt with a Suros Regime on it.

locked

2219 views

People are going to buy a twitch membership for this.

Well, that would be dumb, because what you need is an Amazon Prime membership. (The Twitch membership comes free with that, but that's what you need to buy.)

And I really, really, REALLY doubt anyone's gonna buy a $12.99/month Amazon Prime membership SOLELY for the goodies you get from Twitch Prime.

That's.. kinda not the point, though, is it?

We can chip in and buy CheapLEY an "I don't care, do u" shirt with a Suros Regime on it.

Again, not fair. I'd chip in for a shirt that read 'I don't give a shit'... but without the 'do u' part, since he neither said it nor meant it (even if some folks here thought he implied it).

(And while this was glossed over a little bit, I'd like some credit for not being snarky about the fact that someotherguy's response showed that he jumped into the conversation without even knowing what it was really about; if you didn't even know that you can't buy 'Twitch Prime' (because it's a name for a product that's created by bundling a free item (a basic Twitch account) to a non-free item that has nothing to do with Twitch (Amazon Prime), then you clearly didn't follow ANY of the links to find out what the conversation covered).)

locked

2210 views

Again, not fair. I'd chip in for a shirt that read 'I don't give a shit'... but without the 'do u' part, since he neither said it nor meant it (though he heavily implied it)

I thought you were the poster child for Words Mean Things, Claude?

locked

2193 views

Again, not fair. I'd chip in for a shirt that read 'I don't give a shit'... but without the 'do u' part, since he neither said it nor meant it (though he heavily implied it)

I thought you were the poster child for Words Mean Things, Claude?

Do I need to remind you that my response was written well after he SPECIFICALLY DENIED IT? I didn't read his original post the same way you did, so I didn't see the same 'do u?' you saw - but regardless, once he's come out and said "that's not what I said at all", you have the benefit of hindsight to realize that the implication might have been more heavily in your mind than in reality.

locked

2207 views

Goodness, were it so easy. All those regrettable things said by so many, washed away by a simple "I didnt mean the thing I chose to say".

locked

2211 views

Even cheapLEY conceded that he chose his words poorly. "Not what I said at all" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

locked

2186 views

Even cheapLEY conceded that he chose his words poorly. "Not what I said at all" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I don't think so, but I will concede the point, because I think this has gone far enough.

Narc's comment was still unfair.

locked

2186 views

I thought Narc was being rather generous.

The shirt should actually say "I don't care, why do u?".

And the SUROS should be flipping everyone off.

...

I kind of want this shirt now

locked

2190 views

I thought Narc was being rather generous.

The shirt should actually say "I don't care, why do u?".

And the SUROS should be flipping everyone off.

...

I kind of want this shirt now

Careful, you say that sort of thing and five minutes later some bot is selling the shirt.

locked

2191 views

Even cheapLEY conceded that he chose his words poorly. "Not what I said at all" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I don't think so, but I will concede the point, because I think this has gone far enough.

Narc's comment was still unfair.

If we can spend years holding Cody's feet to the flames for refusing to use socially accepted rhetorical flourishes that positively identify statements as personal opinions and not universal truths, then we can do it for others as well.

As a rhetorical tactic, "who cares" is way, WAY beyond the expression "I don't care." The simplest expression of "I don't care" is saying nothing at all. Somewhere up from that is just baldly stating a lack of interest in the topic before exiting the conversation, as a way of backing away politely.

Leading with "who cares" and staying in the fray to defend it is like lobbing a grenade. It's a rhetorical tactic that suggests one is speaking for a larger group, that expresses mockery of the legitimate interest of others. It's an aggressive expression of the cynical idea that the status quo is either already the best world possible, or at least the one we deserve because we haven't already made it better.

It's possible that not all of that was consciously intended. It's possible that this phrase, as a technique, was absorbed without close attention being paid to all the ramifications. But even if that is the case, it is not out of bounds to say that it is not acceptable-- or at least to point out that this is how it is perceived.

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?

By the way, am I reading this thread correctly? Do Kermit, Cody and I essentially agree in our reactions to this?

locked

2236 views

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?

(Don't be mistaken, I don't actually think you specifically are being a jerk, and I took absolutely no offense from your statement.)

Edit: I would like to point out that I still disagree that saying "who cares?" is some over the top way to respond that actually means something fundamentally different than "I don't care." It was a sarcastic way to meet someotherguy's aggressive, bolded, all caps, the-sky-is-falling declaration.

locked

2208 views

Sorry, this is a really stupid nitpick and brings nothing to the conversation but its been bugging me.

Carry on.

locked

2178 views

I had zero context of that. I guess it didnt make its way to the news over here, or I wasn't paying attention that week.

locked

2176 views

- No text -

locked

2156 views

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.

locked

2187 views

- No text -

locked

2149 views

- No text -

locked

2145 views

You should have said all that in the first place instead of the dickish drive by jab.

Again, theoretically. Your comment didn’t actually bother me, but we’ve moved beyond that into the “words mean things” territory. The jab you actually posted conveyed literally none of what you just said and served only to stir the pot after I admitted that I could have been more considerate with my word choice.

locked

2176 views

Everything he said has been said before time and time again on this very forum. Dismissing this Twitch Prime scenario with "Who Cares" ignores all of the context of the industry and this forum's discussions around it. Sure, Narc could've been more cordial in his rebuttal and yet you, too, were highly dismissive. Don't point at Narc like its his responsibility to take the high ground. Glasses houses and stones and all that.

locked

2169 views

Don't point at Narc like its his responsibility to take the high ground. Glasses houses and stones and all that.

If you can’t acknowledge the irony of those two statements back to back like that, I’m not sure we have anything left to discuss. Give me a break.

locked

2159 views

Don't point at Narc like its his responsibility to take the high ground. Glasses houses and stones and all that.

If you can’t acknowledge the irony of those two statements back to back like that, I’m not sure we have anything left to discuss. Give me a break.

What part of this is ironic? Fury isn't claiming to have the high ground either.

locked

2172 views

Don't point at Narc like its his responsibility to take the high ground. Glasses houses and stones and all that.

If you can’t acknowledge the irony of those two statements back to back like that, I’m not sure we have anything left to discuss. Give me a break.

What part of this is ironic? Fury isn't claiming to have the high ground either.

And yet... you're both giving Cheapley grief for not taking the high road.

My original point in calling Narc out (which I didn't clarify, because by the time I got back to this thread, seemed to have been clarified by others) was that Narc's cheap shot was beneath him. He disagrees, and apparently so do you and EF.

Whatever. Can we stop this silliness now? We're way, way far away from anybody's original point, and I don't think anyone has been adding anything of value for a while.

locked

2168 views

And yet... you're both giving Cheapley grief for not taking the high road.

Not me boss. I was giving him grief for being bad at words.

locked

2175 views

You should have said all that in the first place instead of the dickish drive by jab.

Again, theoretically. Your comment didn’t actually bother me, but we’ve moved beyond that into the “words mean things” territory. The jab you actually posted conveyed literally none of what you just said and served only to stir the pot after I admitted that I could have been more considerate with my word choice.

"It was dickish. It didn't say anything. You were stirring the pot.

*I* wasn't bothered, though."

This is an extremely dishonest, bad-faith way of having an exchange, and it's very much an extension of what I was objecting to before. This is very much akin to saying "somebody else might respond to you by saying you're an idiot, but I won't do that because I'm polite."

If you weren't bothered by it don't use words that indicate you were. If you were bothered by it, don't try to act above the fray.

I made a cultural reference that actually transmitted a good deal of what my later post did. It works less well without knowledge of that reference, but that's just the way of these things.

The rest of what I wrote there is pretty much a repeat of things I've written in the past.

Again, the fact that you retracted is not relevant because the point of responding was not to push your position back, to get you to retract or apologize, but to respond to the content itself that you posted. Your position continues to exist in the world even if you disown it, and that position in particular deserves refutation.

People continue to throw up their hands and ask, "who cares" at people who point out things they think are bad and wrong. If you want to, for the purposes of a particular position, stop saying that, that's fine and good, but realize that when people stand up and say "I care, and I think others should" this is not a criticism of you. It is a criticism of the position. If it's no longer a position you hold, then stop defending it.

Just to go back on topic:

I don't think exotic weapons or armor should be part of rewards that come from real money transactions. I think that in terms of requiring a dev to remain "pure" this is not a particularly onerous restriction, and I think once that is permissible, pretty much anything else could and likely will be.

locked

2169 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

locked

2174 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

Discussing and arguing with Narcogen will harden you as a person man :-p

locked

2155 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

Discussing and arguing with Narcogen will harden you as a person man :-p

There's no charitable interpretation of "who cares". You're used to expressing an opinion and having it go unchallenged because you're entitled to it, because other people will back off because of civility, because they don't want to bother arguing about a game, or because they DO want to argue about games, but not about economics or politics.

You're misinterpreting their silence as acquiescence. You were trying to amplify a nihilist position, pretended to not care about the subject or others' reactions to it, and you're still doing it-- the above is just more of the same, acting as if what went on here wasn't you dismissing the idea that the topic was worth debate, but that people reacting negatively to your post are somehow prejudiced against you, twisting your words, in a way that make you want to not engage.

Yikes.

locked

2161 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

Discussing and arguing with Narcogen will harden you as a person man :-p

There's no charitable interpretation of "who cares". You're used to expressing an opinion and having it go unchallenged because you're entitled to it, because other people will back off because of civility, because they don't want to bother arguing about a game, or because they DO want to argue about games, but not about economics or politics.

You're misinterpreting their silence as acquiescence. You were trying to amplify a nihilist position, pretended to not care about the subject or others' reactions to it, and you're still doing it-- the above is just more of the same, acting as if what went on here wasn't you dismissing the idea that the topic was worth debate, but that people reacting negatively to your post are somehow prejudiced against you, twisting your words, in a way that make you want to not engage.

Yikes.

You're reading WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much into things, Narc.
Let me break down how you're supposed to read Cheap's mindset:

"Who cares?" = This is an unfortunate bit of news, however, at this stage in Destiny's life-cycle, and considering the direction that Bungie's been going over the past year or so, it's not really a surprising turn of events in any sense. However, the impact to the game is so negligible, that few people, if any, will notice a difference in the status quo. The Auto Rifle meta was heretofore nonexistent, and this will not confer any real advantage to anyone who "buys into" the offer over those who choose not to in a competitive engagement.
I understand the argument about this technically crossing the line into Pay To Win from a certain standpoint, but that line has technically been crossed by the season pass system, with weapons such as Devil's Ruin almost just being handed to players, and the community did not seem up in arms about that, so we have, as a community, voiced an acceptance to that degree of 'real money -> exotic gear' already.
In conclusion, while I don't decree that this is a great turn of events, given promises that Bungie once made about non-cosmetic paid items, this is ultimately an inconsequential addition to the game, given extant systems that we already accept, and the lack of impact that this will have in a competitive sense.

You should probably talk to Cheap sometime, Narc. You wouldn't misinterpret him so poorly if you ever heard how he delivers arguments.

locked

2160 views

- No text -

locked

2138 views

You should probably talk to Cheap sometime, Narc. You wouldn't misinterpret him so poorly if you ever heard how he delivers arguments.

You mean like a drunk that bounces from one side of the argument to the other practically within the same sentence? Because that’s how I feel half of the time. (:

locked

2165 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

Discussing and arguing with Narcogen will harden you as a person man :-p

There's no charitable interpretation of "who cares". You're used to expressing an opinion and having it go unchallenged because you're entitled to it, because other people will back off because of civility, because they don't want to bother arguing about a game, or because they DO want to argue about games, but not about economics or politics.

You're misinterpreting their silence as acquiescence. You were trying to amplify a nihilist position, pretended to not care about the subject or others' reactions to it, and you're still doing it-- the above is just more of the same, acting as if what went on here wasn't you dismissing the idea that the topic was worth debate, but that people reacting negatively to your post are somehow prejudiced against you, twisting your words, in a way that make you want to not engage.

Yikes.

You're reading WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much into things, Narc.
Let me break down how you're supposed to read Cheap's mindset:

"Who cares?" = This is an unfortunate bit of news, however, at this stage in Destiny's life-cycle, and considering the direction that Bungie's been going over the past year or so, it's not really a surprising turn of events in any sense. However, the impact to the game is so negligible, that few people, if any, will notice a difference in the status quo. The Auto Rifle meta was heretofore nonexistent, and this will not confer any real advantage to anyone who "buys into" the offer over those who choose not to in a competitive engagement.
I understand the argument about this technically crossing the line into Pay To Win from a certain standpoint, but that line has technically been crossed by the season pass system, with weapons such as Devil's Ruin almost just being handed to players, and the community did not seem up in arms about that, so we have, as a community, voiced an acceptance to that degree of 'real money -> exotic gear' already.
In conclusion, while I don't decree that this is a great turn of events, given promises that Bungie once made about non-cosmetic paid items, this is ultimately an inconsequential addition to the game, given extant systems that we already accept, and the lack of impact that this will have in a competitive sense.

You should probably talk to Cheap sometime, Narc. You wouldn't misinterpret him so poorly if you ever heard how he delivers arguments.

I'm aware of all those arguments. I am not persuaded by any of them.

Weapons/armor in RMT are a red line, period. At least for me. I'm already eligible to get these rewards and I *don't want them* because I do not wish to engage with this system, at all.

Most of the followup discussion wasn't even about the opinion about the game, but the presentation that suggested people holding other opinions were to be marginalized; the rhetorical tactic of "who cares" which I've mentioned more than anything else, and never, ever gets a response; the attempt to amplify one's argument by sounding like it represents more than one's one opinion, because the question "who cares?" implies the answer, "no one". It implies that no one does, and no one should-- at least, not anyone that matters, anyway.

You're essentially making the other half of the "who cares?" argument, which is that it's too late to care.

So the first people who object to this are told, "don't worry, Bungie would never do X"

And then the latest people who object to this are told, "it doesn't matter, Bungie already did X"

locked

2163 views

So the first people who object to this are told, "don't worry, Bungie would never do X"

And then the latest people who object to this are told, "it doesn't matter, Bungie already did X"

This has always been my biggest issue with Bungie's (and others of course, but this is DBO) staunchest defenders.

When they first started doing this stuff (way back in D1!) and I was concerned that it could reach this point I was told "Oh but its only minor", "It's not a real advantage", "Slippery slope is a fallacy", "Stop being such a doomsinger".

Now that it has reached this point, it's all "This isn't new", "Why didn't you complain sooner".

Which besides being a fundamentally ridiculous argument (of roughly equal merit to "Its tradition" in terms of poor excuses), I did complain sooner. And you all told me I was overreacting.

locked

2156 views

And? What did your complaining accomplish?

Other than complain, what did you actually do? What will you do now? If this is the line in the sand, what will you do now that they’ve crossed it?

This isn’t the rest of it’s saying you should have been louder, this is the rest of us saying that it didn’t matter then and doesn’t matter any more now.

EDIT: I don’t speak for anyone else, so let me change that—this is ME saying it doesn’t matter.

So now let me say, genuinely, “who cares?” Because it sure seems like the answer is basically no one, or if they do, they don’t care enough to actually do anything about it, which amounts to the same thing.

locked

2195 views

And? What did your complaining accomplish?

Ohhh, you're one of those. Sorry I didn't bring Bungie to their knees single-handedly, I guess? What have you done of any real merit or significance lately?

Other than complain, what did you actually do? What will you do now? If this is the line in the sand, what will you do now that they’ve crossed it?

They crossed my line in the sand a long time ago. So I voted with my wallet and refused to purchase D2.

This isn’t the rest of it’s saying you should have been louder, this is the rest of us saying that it didn’t matter then and doesn’t matter any more now.

Can you be more clear? What doesn't matter? Why?

So now let me say, genuinely, “who cares?” Because it sure seems like the answer is basically no one, or if they do, they don’t care enough to actually do anything about it, which amounts to the same thing.

Did you learn nothing from this exchange?

Me. I care. Narc cares. Cody cares. If you can't use your words like a grownup, without belittling people, maybe you need to take a little time to think about why you stooped to this level to defend a corporation.

Thank goodness we don't live in your world, where the majority opinion or belief invalidates the minority by merit if being larger.

locked

2194 views

Ohhh, you're one of those.

If you can't use your words like a grownup, without belittling people, maybe you need to take a little time

There's just a LITTLE bit of hypocrisy here. Can you see it?

Would it be possible, maybe, to make your point without stooping to what you're accusing others of stooping to? I'd really appreciate it.

(I've already asked if this could stop. Nobody seems to give a damn. Mostly because EVERYONE seems to want the last word. I'm gonna ask again - and then I'm gonna lock this thread. All of you - can you find it in your hearts to let the last word go, this time? You've ALL made your points.)

locked

2176 views

Ohhh, you're one of those.

If you can't use your words like a grownup, without belittling people, maybe you need to take a little time

There's just a LITTLE bit of hypocrisy here. Can you see it?

Would it be possible, maybe, to make your point without stooping to what you're accusing others of stooping to? I'd really appreciate it.

(I've already asked if this could stop. Nobody seems to give a damn. Mostly because EVERYONE seems to want the last word. I'm gonna ask again - and then I'm gonna lock this thread. All of you - can you find it in your hearts to let the last word go, this time? You've ALL made your points.)

I think we can all agree that ultimately, as always, Korny was right.

/thread

PS. None of this drama ever happens at Warframe.Bungie.Org

locked

2155 views

- No text -

locked

2166 views

Would it be possible, maybe, to make your point without stooping to what you're accusing others of stooping to? I'd really appreciate it

Certainly, I'll concede that point. Feel free to imagine I turned the other cheek. Everything else holds up.

locked

2196 views

Ohhh, you're one of those.

If you can't use your words like a grownup, without belittling people, maybe you need to take a little time

There's just a LITTLE bit of hypocrisy here. Can you see it?

In a microscope, yeah.

Would it be possible, maybe, to make your point without stooping to what you're accusing others of stooping to? I'd really appreciate it.

(I've already asked if this could stop. Nobody seems to give a damn. Mostly because EVERYONE seems to want the last word. I'm gonna ask again - and then I'm gonna lock this thread. All of you - can you find it in your hearts to let the last word go, this time? You've ALL made your points.)

Wow, really?

If this is the level of incivility that justifies a thread lock it's simply not going to be possible to discuss anything of any import regarding the industry. Because increasingly any criticism of the industry on any level devolves into "boycott or GTFO".

Of course you're right, everyone does want to have the last word-- heck, that's what I'm doing here now! Again! And frankly, I enjoy these thread about as much as anyone else-- which is to say, not one damn bit.

I think what bugs me is that some people leave a thread by knocking over the table and throwing all the pieces on the floor, and somehow it's "the other side's" job to be civil and let the discussion end instead of pointing out there's now a huge mess on the floor.

"I didn't mean it, it was a joke, you misinterpreted me, you're overthinking this, it doesn't really matter, nobody really cares, it doesn't matter anyway, I already took it back..."

Yeah, sorry. Not letting stuff like that be the last word.

locked

2141 views

And? What did your complaining accomplish?

Other than complain, what did you actually do? What will you do now? If this is the line in the sand, what will you do now that they’ve crossed it?

This isn’t the rest of it’s saying you should have been louder, this is the rest of us saying that it didn’t matter then and doesn’t matter any more now.

EDIT: I don’t speak for anyone else, so let me change that—this is ME saying it doesn’t matter.

So now let me say, genuinely, “who cares?” Because it sure seems like the answer is basically no one, or if they do, they don’t care enough to actually do anything about it, which amounts to the same thing.

There is one small matter in this post I'd like to point out for a second. I've been reading all the posts in this thread and I agree it should stop, since it's gotten a little too big. Sorry Wu, I know you said that you want the arguing to end—I'm not trying to spread any flames here, and I promise I won't post in this thread again...unless someone asks me about food.

The question 'what did you actually do' is one that can't really be answered. Technically, there isn't anything we as the public can do otherwise, even in large numbers. We can write a letter or e-mail, but no matter how nice or civil the containing words are, it's basically the same as a complaint. Either way, it'll drown in fan mail, UN-civil complaints, and death threats. We can't really boycott a newly free game which already has millions of players, old, new, and old-new. Online petitions? Just a list of names. Redundantly, we also can't threaten or attack Bungie either.
Though I do believe Luke Smith deserves at least one slap to the face--open palm or backhanded, dealer's choice.
Frankly, complaining is our second strongest weapon. Boycotting is the strongest, but it would take millions to pull that off. And even though some have backed up their bluffs, I have seen a good number of "Trials or Die" fanatics begrudgingly muttering their way back online over the years.
Even then, complaining is a risk in its own. I've literally lost track of all the times Bungie Sonic Adventure 2'ed us. So while I'm not personally a fan of microtransactions/pay to win, etc. I still think feedback is, if nothing else, a place to speak your mind and maybe just maybe get the ball rolling.

locked

2191 views

And? What did your complaining accomplish?

Other than complain, what did you actually do? What will you do now? If this is the line in the sand, what will you do now that they’ve crossed it?

This isn’t the rest of it’s saying you should have been louder, this is the rest of us saying that it didn’t matter then and doesn’t matter any more now.

EDIT: I don’t speak for anyone else, so let me change that—this is ME saying it doesn’t matter.

Cool. So you're retracting your retracting? Cool, cool.

So now let me say, genuinely, “who cares?” Because it sure seems like the answer is basically no one, or if they do, they don’t care enough to actually do anything about it, which amounts to the same thing.

This is the kind of bad faith bullcrap I was calling you out for, and you had the gall to play victim when I did it.

Nobody cares, or if they do, they don't care enough, or if they care enough, they didn't DO anything about it, and if they did anything about it, it didn't matter.

That argument can get into the sea, right now.

I *AM* doing something about it. I am currently not playing Destiny 2. I have not purchased the current season pass, and I do not intend to. I have not claimed these "rewards" this system says I am entitled to, because I don't think they should exist. And I am here, on this forum and elsewhere, expressing the opinion that developers and publishers should not engage in anti-consumer practices, that media and consumers should call out developers and publishers, even ones they LIKE, for engaging in anti-consumer practices, and take into account these practices when making decisions about what games to buy, what services to subscribe to, and what games to play and support.

You are here trying to extend your opinion that you do not care about these issues and are not personally affected by them, and expanding it to other people shouldn't either, and that the people who do care don't matter. It's not just that you don't care. You don't want others to care, either, and you want to invalidate the idea of caring.

Nuts to that.

locked

2165 views

I haven't purchased the season pass either. However, don’t necessarily lump in a season pass with anti consumer practices. Fundamentally, it’s no different than shareware. Have a sample, then if you like pay to get the whole thing. Nothing about that is inherently scummy. It certainly CAN be, but it’s not rotten to the core like micro transactions are.

locked

2195 views

I haven't purchased the season pass either. However, don’t necessarily lump in a season pass with anti consumer practices. Fundamentally, it’s no different than shareware. Have a sample, then if you like pay to get the whole thing. Nothing about that is inherently scummy. It certainly CAN be, but it’s not rotten to the core like micro transactions are.

I was not saying it was.

I was merely listing my actions in response to the usual "nobody ever does anything, they just talk".

I don't like how Destiny 2's design currently makes me feel about playing on a regular basis.

But I enjoy new actual content. So I bought the DLC and the season it came bundled with, and no more.

locked

2122 views

I *AM* doing something about it. I am currently not playing Destiny 2. I have not purchased the current season pass, and I do not intend to. I have not claimed these "rewards" this system says I am entitled to, because I don't think they should exist. And I am here, on this forum and elsewhere, expressing the opinion that developers and publishers should not engage in anti-consumer practices, that media and consumers should call out developers and publishers, even ones they LIKE, for engaging in anti-consumer practices, and take into account these practices when making decisions about what games to buy, what services to subscribe to, and what games to play and support.

If you had come in here, when this thread was heating up with opinions about which side of whatever line in the sand Bungie was on today, and made some of these points in your inimitable way, I wouldn't have said a word.

Hell - if you had come in late (as you did), and made your points as you have in the last couple of posts, I wouldn't have said a word.

But you didn't.

You came in late, and you came in with drive-by snark, and you didn't follow it up with anything else germane to the state of the industry for 40 more posts (about a day). I mean... you posted between that drive-by and your discussion of the current problems with the industry... but it was mostly about how it was okay to take shots at Cheapley.

I'm not saying you have to stay on topic here. (I mean, if that were a rule, we'd have closed down years ago.) I'm saying you're being disingenuous if you're trying to claim that your involvement in this thread has been about a discussion on the industry. (Your last comment on this subject was "If this is the level of incivility that justifies a thread lock it's simply not going to be possible to discuss anything of any import regarding the industry." Dude - you weren't discussing the industry - you were adding to a general level of hostility here that makes ME tired... and I'm probably the most patient reader this forum has.)

I was disappointed that this place has gotten so combative that even NARCOGEN feels comfortable coming in with a cheap shot, and not much else until I threaten to shut the thread off. That's all.

I quit Facebook because my country's politics are like this. I used to come here to escape from the constant fighting. But it's here now. And that sucks.

locked

2175 views

I was disappointed that this place has gotten so combative that even NARCOGEN feels comfortable coming in with a cheap shot, and not much else until I threaten to shut the thread off. That's all.

I quit Facebook because my country's politics are like this. I used to come here to escape from the constant fighting. But it's here now. And that sucks.

I think that’ll always be an issue when people are either overly sensitive (like Narc), overly arbitrary (like Cody), or overly centrist (cheapley) on a major subject. In this instance, real-world monetization of universe-game rewards that impact gameplay.

No reason for lack of civility, but as someone who gets frustrated when people start getting snarky, I can always tell where the catalyst for a snowball effect is, and what direction an argument is going to head pretty early. Which is why I dipped out of the thread for the most part.

Let’s remember that nobody’s a bad guy on this forum (except car15, that douche), so let’s not take dismissal of our perspectives to heart.

Namaste.

locked

2213 views

Being called a centrist is the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen on this forum. (:

locked

2147 views

Nobody wants to be called it. Nobody really wants to say it. We all know it's a nasty thing to say, and nobody wants to be accused of it.

But sometimes you're behaving like one and you need someone to call you out on it so you can stop.

...

I'm talking about Centrist, of course.

Edit to add: I really am, I dont think anyone here is being the other C word. I just couldn't resist the framing device.

locked

2162 views

- No text -

locked

2158 views

I'm not saying you have to stay on topic here. (I mean, if that were a rule, we'd have closed down years ago.) I'm saying you're being disingenuous if you're trying to claim that your involvement in this thread has been about a discussion on the industry. (Your last comment on this subject was "If this is the level of incivility that justifies a thread lock it's simply not going to be possible to discuss anything of any import regarding the industry." Dude - you weren't discussing the industry - you were adding to a general level of hostility here that makes ME tired... and I'm probably the most patient reader this forum has.)

I was disappointed that this place has gotten so combative that even NARCOGEN feels comfortable coming in with a cheap shot, and not much else until I threaten to shut the thread off. That's all.

I quit Facebook because my country's politics are like this. I used to come here to escape from the constant fighting. But it's here now. And that sucks.

(Geeze this post of mine is a downer.)

It's going to be a long 2020, and I'm going to stop that point there. So... here is a broad brush statement that I'm about to make; It would be unwise to expect fresh water from a sewage pipe. I direct that at no one, but only to actions. Made again, and again, and again.

I've already made a post about this, so I might not need to say much more. I think there are those of us here that have taken what you have built, and the kindness that built it, for granted Wu. I don't know if I have a solution of... well... that you'll like anyway. If the kids can't play nice with the toys, they lose the toys. Make it Destiny only. Or ban the topics the bring such ire. Or add permissions to accounts/ a reputation system/ Quarantine thread (which would be the soft ban) and make the main forum invite only. I hate this. It's some cast system bull. Yet I also grow tired of mucking through the bull myself. The egos. The selfishness. The fight for the last word. The sheer lack of self discipline and discourse. You know... classic human shit no one is immune to, but some of us seem to imbibe into far to readily. Drop of a hat.

Yet such ideas presented requires more implementation then ya want to do right? Then you should have to do. To a point I agree, and I can't blame ya. I don't want to blame ya. What are you going to do Wu? Nothing? All this will pass as it does, but if that's what you're going to do - can you complain?

In recent reflection, the discourse here seems two fold. First, as a reflection to the Health of Destiny The Game. If there was more to speak of in Destiny, we would, I think. In the down time though, it's all being filled with classic antagonizers with the illusion of discussion. Economics & Systems, Politics, and "Your Mother is so fat". Second, many of the old voices have gone silent here. The social pickings have lessened over time.

Why do we have so many (by my count 759-sh) people signed up to this forum, and yet we see so few? How much of that provides clean water?

locked

2169 views

I *AM* doing something about it. I am currently not playing Destiny 2. I have not purchased the current season pass, and I do not intend to. I have not claimed these "rewards" this system says I am entitled to, because I don't think they should exist. And I am here, on this forum and elsewhere, expressing the opinion that developers and publishers should not engage in anti-consumer practices, that media and consumers should call out developers and publishers, even ones they LIKE, for engaging in anti-consumer practices, and take into account these practices when making decisions about what games to buy, what services to subscribe to, and what games to play and support.

If you had come in here, when this thread was heating up with opinions about which side of whatever line in the sand Bungie was on today, and made some of these points in your inimitable way, I wouldn't have said a word.

Hell - if you had come in late (as you did), and made your points as you have in the last couple of posts, I wouldn't have said a word.

But you didn't.

You came in late, and you came in with drive-by snark, and you didn't follow it up with anything else germane to the state of the industry for 40 more posts (about a day).

If daily visits are too infrequent then I guess there's not much to be done about it. I apologize.

I mean... you posted between that drive-by and your discussion of the current problems with the industry... but it was mostly about how it was okay to take shots at Cheapley.

It is OK to refute CheapLEY's argument by pointing out arguments it is similar to. Unless we're saying there's a new Godwin's law that applies to FLOTUS, which would be an interesting statement, to say the least.

I'm not saying you have to stay on topic here. (I mean, if that were a rule, we'd have closed down years ago.) I'm saying you're being disingenuous if you're trying to claim that your involvement in this thread has been about a discussion on the industry.

... what the hell else is it about?

In response to what I viewed as some rather valid and on-topic discussion about whether Bungie's practices are anti-consumer (which they are, in my personal opinion) CheapLEY came in to contribute "who cares". This is designed to stop discussion. It is designed to accuse people of concern trolling. It is designed to bolster a status quo that I see as negative.

I haven't the foggiest idea why you'd think that the point of my doing this was "ooh, look, I get to take a dig at CheapLEY" as if that was my motivation. But I will absolutely take a dig at bad faith debate tactics like "who cares" in service of a negative status quo.

(Your last comment on this subject was "If this is the level of incivility that justifies a thread lock it's simply not going to be possible to discuss anything of any import regarding the industry." Dude - you weren't discussing the industry - you were adding to a general level of hostility here that makes ME tired... and I'm probably the most patient reader this forum has.)

Yes, I was discussing the industry. Saying I'm not seems to indicate your real issue is the political content, but there's no discussion of the industry at this time without discussion of regulation and regulation is politics.

Saying that bad actors in the industry, or in the discussion of an industry, are like other bad actors in other contexts does not change the topic of conversation to be that other context. I think you chose to fixate on that, and decided that everything else I wrote on the subject was just a disguise to get in a political remark. It was not. I don't know why you would think that, beyond the fact that it really bothered you that I did it, and you wanted to talk about that part and not the rest.

I was disappointed that this place has gotten so combative that even NARCOGEN feels comfortable coming in with a cheap shot, and not much else until I threaten to shut the thread off. That's all.

Why was that a cheap shot? Did you notice that you calling it a cheap shot led to CheapLEY also claiming it was a cheap shot, despite him claiming that 1) he didn't get it and 2) he wasn't bothered by it?

Pointing at nihilism and calling it nihilism is not a cheap shot. Pointing out defeatism and calling it defeatism is not a cheap shot. Pointing out that one person saying "I don't care, neither should anyone else" is like another person saying "I don't care, and neither should anyone else" is not a cheap shot. One might make the argument that comparing a small bad thing to a big bad thing degrades the level of discourse about the BIG bad thing, but I seem to notice nobody is even bothering to make that argument, and since the "big thing" in the context of this forum is videogames... well...

I quit Facebook because my country's politics are like this. I used to come here to escape from the constant fighting. But it's here now. And that sucks.

This forum isn't separate from the country or countries from which its readers hail, or from the world as a whole. It is part of it. The videogame industry isn't separate from the world. It is part of it. These things were always true, even when it was easier and more convenient for more people to pretend that it wasn't.

Movie quote time!

"We are the world in small. A nation is a human thing. It does what we do, for our reasons."

My reason for responding in this thread at all is that "who cares" is toxic. It says a lot to me that that slides, but the comparison to another sphere in which it is acknowledged that "who cares" is toxic was what really caused the objection.

If there's proof that this forum is now so combative that one should feel disappointed about it, it's not that I felt comfortable calling out "who cares" as being toxic. It's that the default position was to defend that statement because my criticism referenced a nearly identical statement, but in a political context, and calling that reference "cheap".

locked

2156 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

Discussing and arguing with Narcogen will harden you as a person man :-p

There's no charitable interpretation of "who cares". You're used to expressing an opinion and having it go unchallenged because you're entitled to it, because other people will back off because of civility, because they don't want to bother arguing about a game, or because they DO want to argue about games, but not about economics or politics.

You're misinterpreting their silence as acquiescence. You were trying to amplify a nihilist position, pretended to not care about the subject or others' reactions to it, and you're still doing it-- the above is just more of the same, acting as if what went on here wasn't you dismissing the idea that the topic was worth debate, but that people reacting negatively to your post are somehow prejudiced against you, twisting your words, in a way that make you want to not engage.

Yikes.

Did you mean to reply to me, or to CheapLEY?

locked

2156 views

I feel like I’m living in fucking crazy town.

You all just find the absolute worst way to interpret anything that’s ever said in this forum. I honestly wonder if it’s even worth trying anymore.

Discussing and arguing with Narcogen will harden you as a person man :-p

There's no charitable interpretation of "who cares". You're used to expressing an opinion and having it go unchallenged because you're entitled to it, because other people will back off because of civility, because they don't want to bother arguing about a game, or because they DO want to argue about games, but not about economics or politics.

You're misinterpreting their silence as acquiescence. You were trying to amplify a nihilist position, pretended to not care about the subject or others' reactions to it, and you're still doing it-- the above is just more of the same, acting as if what went on here wasn't you dismissing the idea that the topic was worth debate, but that people reacting negatively to your post are somehow prejudiced against you, twisting your words, in a way that make you want to not engage.

Yikes.

Did you mean to reply to me, or to CheapLEY?

It can be both.

locked

2165 views

- No text -

locked

2134 views

- No text -

locked

2157 views

By the way, am I reading this thread correctly? Do Kermit, Cody and I essentially agree in our reactions to this?

I don't know. I wasn't really reading it because I don't care anymore :-p

locked

2195 views

I agree with literally every word. It rubs me the wrong way here because we do often talk about the trends of the industry and where Destiny fits in all of that. Obviously plenty of people care, regardless of where they stand on the topic. "Who cares" is wholly dismissive. It may not have been meant that way, and that's fine, but the choice of words poorly represents any other meaning.

locked

2180 views

By the way, am I reading this thread correctly? Do Kermit, Cody and I essentially agree in our reactions to this?

In our distaste for this development? Maybe. But probably not in its significance, or how we weigh all the pieces of the story. For instance, Cody thinks the game should just be more expensive to cover costs. I think the current landscape and gamer expectations make that a risky business proposition. You seem to think greed on someone's part is a prime motivator here. I don't know that I do--at least not to the degree that you do.

I don't like them "selling" exotics in part because exotics have played such an important role in the mythos of Destiny. Selling one breaks immersion in a way.

It also reminds me of the exclusives debate. I didn't like those either, but they truly changed the value proposition of the game very little, and I always thought that business dictated that Bungie pretend they were more important than they were, when those of us who really played the game realized that what was offered wasn't all that.

Finally, I'm still enjoying Destiny and I don't want to stop. I still like to think they're trying to make something cool and keep the staff they need to do so employed. I stand by what I said the other day. I'm not as pure as Cody. Maybe it's personality differences. Maybe I'm more likely to just pick off the unwanted anchovies from the pizza rather than go without pizza. Cody just wants the cooks to make the pizza he wants them to make or he's out, and that's his prerogative.

locked

2188 views

It also reminds me of the exclusives debate. I didn't like those either, but they truly changed the value proposition of the game very little

For you. Remember my quest for Hawkmoon? I'd have been free of that if I had the game on Xbox :-p

Cody just wants the cooks to make the pizza he wants them to make or he's out, and that's his prerogative.

Not exactly.

I'm actually quite tolerant of human error and mistakes. If they make my pizza wrong, I'm usually cool about it and either just take it or wait for them to make a new one. But man, I've seen people who really get mad and take it personally, and berate the staff for even tiny mistakes when there isn't really anything on the line.

Mistakes are mistakes though. I can let those slide. Like, if you made a game that just didn't quite measure up but you tried your best, I'm all for that and would never get indignant (not now anyway). BUT, we are not talking about just errors here; we are talking about purposeful, calculated decisions that are not in good faith towards the player. THAT'S what I can't tolerate. Willful infliction of harm.

locked

2202 views

It also reminds me of the exclusives debate. I didn't like those either, but they truly changed the value proposition of the game very little

For you. Remember my quest for Hawkmoon? I'd have been free of that if I had the game on Xbox :-p

Cody just wants the cooks to make the pizza he wants them to make or he's out, and that's his prerogative.

Not exactly.

I'm actually quite tolerant of human error and mistakes. If they make my pizza wrong, I'm usually cool about it and either just take it or wait for them to make a new one. But man, I've seen people who really get mad and take it personally, and berate the staff for even tiny mistakes when there isn't really anything on the line.

Mistakes are mistakes though. I can let those slide. Like, if you made a game that just didn't quite measure up but you tried your best, I'm all for that and would never get indignant (not now anyway). BUT, we are not talking about just errors here; we are talking about purposeful, calculated decisions that are not in good faith towards the player. THAT'S what I can't tolerate. Willful infliction of harm.

Sure, the pizza analogy isn't perfect. I might be less forgiving than you when it comes to restaurant service. About this bad faith thing, though. It sounds like you don't think there's a good faith reason to do any of these things you don't like. I say there might be, and we also have to look at things holistically. I think, for instance, that gamers respond in bad faith pretty often these days, and while games are more amazing than ever, gamers' expectations of what they get per dollar are stratospheric. I don't think any studio enjoys the loyalty of their fanbase quite to the extent Bungie used to, and sure, that's changed and some of that is because of Bungie's actions--certainly not all of it, though.

locked

2191 views

I say there might be, and we also have to look at things holistically. I think, for instance, that gamers respond in bad faith pretty often these days, and while games are more amazing than ever, gamers' expectations of what they get per dollar are stratospheric.

That's not my problem to solve. Perhaps they could try adjusting that expectation… by not hiding the price behind microtransactions and simply ask what it's worth. This business model is going to shoot the industry in the foot sooner or later. Musicians can tour. Game developers can't.

locked

2187 views

I say there might be, and we also have to look at things holistically. I think, for instance, that gamers respond in bad faith pretty often these days, and while games are more amazing than ever, gamers' expectations of what they get per dollar are stratospheric.

That's not my problem to solve. Perhaps they could try adjusting that expectation… by not hiding the price behind microtransactions and simply ask what it's worth. This business model is going to shoot the industry in the foot sooner or later. Musicians can tour. Game developers can't.

Yes, what can't go on forever will stop. We agree that there's a problem, and that we can't solve it. [handshake]

locked

2181 views

By the way, am I reading this thread correctly? Do Kermit, Cody and I essentially agree in our reactions to this?

In our distaste for this development? Maybe. But probably not in its significance, or how we weigh all the pieces of the story. For instance, Cody thinks the game should just be more expensive to cover costs.

Can I also just say how uncomfortable I am with the idea that people should have to be able to pay a certain amount of money, otherwise they aren’t enjoying the game in the correct way, are damaging the whole industry, and should be excluded? I know it’s not the specific goal but at the end result is a poll tax for gaming. Breaking up the cost of a game over time isn’t just a way for game companies to make money it is also a way for them to increase the number of people who can play their game and reduce The price of base games given inflation. That’s democratizing gaming.

Sometimes good things are expensive and unaffordable to many, and if good games must be that then so be it, but let’s note the impact on those people as we talk about idealist purity in game revenue.

locked

2162 views

Can I also just say how uncomfortable I am with the idea that people should have to be able to pay a certain amount of money, otherwise they aren’t enjoying the game in the correct way, are damaging the whole industry, and should be excluded?

I don't think anyone here made that argument. The price you pay for a game has zero to do with enjoying a game the 'correct' way.

I know it’s not the specific goal but at the end result is a poll tax for gaming.

Only with digital distribution. Another reason to oppose this. With physical releases you don't have to pay anything: "Hey, can I borrow that game for a bit?" "Okay sure". You can also buy used.

Breaking up the cost of a game over time isn’t just a way for game companies to make money it is also a way for them to increase the number of people who can play their game and reduce The price of base games given inflation. That’s democratizing gaming.

It is not always true that expanding the base means increasing the profits. You know this. Set the price too low and while more people might buy, you make less of each sale. There is an optimal price point which maximizes profit, which is always going to be higher than some people are willing to pay. People are already being excluded. There already exist options for players who can't afford it: wait till there's a sale or price drop, borrow the game, or pirate it.

Sometimes good things are expensive and unaffordable to many, and if good games must be that then so be it, but let’s note the impact on those people as we talk about idealist purity in game revenue.

It's not just about revenue but sensible design. If you won't pay full price for a game, and in order to capture you as a player the designers must compromise the game design, then you have in fact done harm to the industry. The idea of widening your audience becomes self defeating if it ruins what made the thing good in the first place. By all means widen without compromise; I think gaming being as big as it is today is a wonderful thing. But only if the games continue to be wonderful.

locked

2178 views

. . . most is the instances where things get cut and protracted to account for no additional revenue streams and a market acceptable price of 60USD.

locked

2174 views

It creates a focus and pushes towards a tight concentrated experience.

locked

2173 views

- No text -

locked

2135 views

The original Halo.

Prior to the acquisition Halo wasn’t really even a game. There was no “gameplay loop” or anything other than a tech sandbox that was being worked on endlessly. When you have to ship in a year and a half on a new platform you have to start figuring things out and deciding what’s important.

If you can only count on the initial investment of the purchase price, you likewise have to prioritize and make the best bang for you buck so to speak, which is always the fundamentals and why many such games are super solid.

Obviously this can go too far, but if you make a great game it will hopefully sell enough in this day and age.

locked

2177 views

Soooo, if it had been a Macintosh release price was unbounded?

locked

2149 views

Soooo, if it had been a Macintosh release price was unbounded?

Since at the time Bungie was self publishing, yes. They could charge whatever they wanted.

locked

2171 views

Soooo, if it had been a Macintosh release price was unbounded?

Since at the time Bungie was self publishing, yes. They could charge whatever they wanted.

[image]

We're talking about the ability to price things while considering not only profit but price sensitivity. Of course they could literally charge whatever they wanted but that is meaningless to this argument. Realistically, no developer or publisher can charge "whatever they want."

Your argument, then, is one about artistic purity; games uninfluenced by the financial circumstances of their development. When judging a work, you must either take all context of its creation into consideration or none of it. The economics of it all is a part of that context.

Your purity arguments try to look at games in a vacuum. Your ideals are aspirational but entirely unrealistic. To make a game like the one Bungie makes, this is how they need to fund it. You believe this mars the work and, IIRC, your arguments usually boil down to either "Charge for it differently the way that I want without regard to the same factors Bungie is considering," or "Don't make that kind of game."

We've already brought up price sensitivity as at least one factor that Bungie is considering that you don't seem to be concerned with. The other? "Don't make that kind of game." I mean, that's just your opinion, man, and Bungie can make whatever game they want. It's their studio and their choice. We get it at this point; please stop bringing that up.

So are we just beating a dead horse again? Business as usual?

Yes, there is a line that needs to be drawn as to what business practices are acceptable, but we can't judge them in a vacuum and we certainly can't be bitching about purity in the year 2020.

I'm probably wrong somehow but I calls it likes I sees it.

locked

2191 views

we certainly can't be bitching about purity in the year 2020.

Why?

locked

2144 views

- No text -

locked

2132 views

I dont know about Halo 2 specifically mind.

Frequently though, publishers need to hit a given date to keep a promise to their shareholders. Plus we've all seen fan reaction to delays.

I'd argue that if "gamer entitlement" is real anywhere, its in the way we behave when we're told we might have to wait for something.

locked

2172 views

I'd argue that if "gamer entitlement" is real anywhere, its in the way we behave when we're told we might have to wait for something.

This is madness. We are paying them and buying their product. Of course we get to demand stuff! That’s the entire point of it.

locked

2188 views

I'd argue that if "gamer entitlement" is real anywhere, its in the way we behave when we're told we might have to wait for something.

This is madness. We are paying them and buying their product. Of course we get to demand stuff! That’s the entire point of it.

People sending death threats because a game isn't out yet is ridiculous.

Also what are we paying them? The game isn't out yet. Plus if the demand is "I want the thing to be inferior and I want it now" doesn't that go against everything you want from the industry?

locked

2180 views

People sending death threats because a game isn't out yet is ridiculous.

Oh. Yeah that is.

Also what are we paying them? The game isn't out yet.

Preorder? Lol.

Plus if the demand is "I want the thing to be inferior and I want it now" doesn't that go against everything you want from the industry?

What are we talking about again? I'm lost.

locked

2162 views

Also what are we paying them? The game isn't out yet.

Preorder? Lol.

If you, Cody Miller, still believe in preorders I have to assume your whole schtick is a sham and you've successfully been trolling us all for years.

Don't be dense.

Plus if the demand is "I want the thing to be inferior and I want it now" doesn't that go against everything you want from the industry?

What are we talking about again? I'm lost.

People getting arsy about delays are effectively saying "compromise your artistic and design integrity to give us the thing NOW". Isn't that the opposite of your usual sentiment?

You're so inconsistent sometimes I think you must just toss a coin before you join a debate.

locked

2160 views

People getting arsy about delays are effectively saying "compromise your artistic and design integrity to give us the thing NOW". Isn't that the opposite of your usual sentiment?

You're so inconsistent sometimes I think you must just toss a coin before you join a debate.

No dude I would never demand a specific release date! I'm all for waiting so it's the best it can be.

locked

2176 views

It only takes a single counterexample to invalidate an argument. Halo 2 had a lot of cut content. Why? Funding constraints due in part to the pricing of games.

locked

2157 views

It only takes a single counterexample to invalidate an argument. Halo 2 had a lot of cut content. Why? Funding constraints due in part to the pricing of games.

Yeah, Halo 2's state was NOT the result of funding dude. It was the result of an already pushed release date, and having to redo large portions of the game to make them fun.

locked

2132 views

- No text -

locked

2130 views

Xbox 360 came out in 2005. They couldn't push Halo 2 any longer because then it'd be out on a last gen system. The release date had nothing to do with funding or any of that bullshit.

locked

2144 views

You’re totally right—we definitely didn’t see any games release on both the 360 and Xbox One simultaneously, and they’re definitely not already on record saying that all first party games will release on the Xbox One and the Series X. It’s just a complete impossibility that they could have worked around that.

Never mind the fact that there’s an entire year between Halo 2 and the Xbox 360.

locked

2158 views

You’re totally right—we definitely didn’t see any games release on both the 360 and Xbox One simultaneously, and they’re definitely not already on record saying that all first party games will release on the Xbox One and the Series X. It’s just a complete impossibility that they could have worked around that.

Never mind the fact that there’s an entire year between Halo 2 and the Xbox 360.

Yes because Bungie was coding the game for both systems at the time. NOT. He said the game release date could have been pushed if there was more money (never mind MS has tons), and I explained why it couldn’t. Money isn’t the only thing that determines scheduling.

locked

2151 views

He said the game release date could have been pushed if there was more money

I read that *NM* as "they could've hired a more devs to make up time"

locked

2150 views

He said the game release date could have been pushed if there was more money

I read that *NM* as "they could've hired a more devs to make up time"

Mythical Man Month.

locked

2154 views

It only takes a single counterexample to invalidate an argument.

Well that's just a straight-up falsehood.

Why? Funding constraints due in part to the pricing of games.

Source?

locked

2142 views

- No text -

locked

2144 views

- No text -

locked

2155 views

- No text -

locked

2133 views

- No text -

locked

2143 views

But perhaps it's because I wasn't clear in mine.

Are you saying that all games with content cut "for time" are actually (secretly) cutting content because it's not a big enough selling point to drive sales specifically because of the $60 price point?

How do games that have gone on sale for higher prices factor in to this? They still sell remarkably well (even when they have objectively less content *cough Activision cough*).

locked

2160 views

I appreciate the defense. I recognize that I probably come off as a little unstable sometimes, if not just outright an asshole. I don’t put as much thought into the words I type as I probably should. I maintain that if you heard me speak the exact same words, you wouldn’t misunderstand my actual meaning. But I also recognize that’s not really a legitimate excuse.

I worry that I come off as a stupid troll sometimes. I mostly don’t intend to. (:

locked

2181 views

I think you're pretty cool!

We dont always agree, and that's okay. But I definitely don't think of you as unstable or a troll.

You probably (hopefully!) dont care too much what an Internet Stranger thinks of you. But still.

locked

2180 views

It’s appreciated. I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but this place is home in a lot of ways, and I do care what people here think of me.

locked

2173 views

It's okay if you can earn the cosmetics in-game too

And if you can't it's okay if it's still just cosmetics

And if it's not, it's okay if it's not weapons

And if it is, it's okay if they're not exotic

And if they are, it's okay if they aren't meta

People give the slippery slope argument a bad rap, but the slope is there and it is slippery. And Bungie are hurling thsmselves down it with glee.

You can bend over backwards to say "it's not because [excuse]", but at a certain point you have to concede that what you really mean is "My morals are flexible and I'd rather move the goalposts than have to think about it".

locked

2183 views

You’re putting words in my mouth, words I never even implied, much less actually said.

I don’t care about any slippery slope. There is no slope, just a line they’ve either crossed or they haven’t. They clearly have for you. I couldn’t care less about this (well, I guess I could—I could just be ignoring this thread).

My problem with this isn’t that they’re selling SUROS Regime, my problem is that the game is designed in such a way that anyone could feel even the slightest bit like it’s necessary to actually buy SUROS Regime.

How would you feel if they just announced a new exotic gun, and you can get it for $8 (or whatever a twitch prime membership costs)?

locked

2224 views

How would you feel if they just announced a new exotic gun, and you can get it for $8 (or whatever a twitch prime membership costs)?

Terrible!

My problem with this isn’t that they’re selling SUROS Regime, my problem is that the game is designed in such a way that anyone could feel even the slightest bit like it’s necessary to actually buy SUROS Regime.

Yes. So you do see (part of) the point. So why don't you care again?

Edit to add:

You’re putting words in my mouth, words I never even implied, much less actually said.

affects the competitive playing field of Destiny zero percent.

locked

2232 views

Edit to add:

You’re putting words in my mouth, words I never even implied, much less actually said.

affects the competitive playing field of Destiny zero percent.

And?

My point is that’s not moving the goalposts. Your goalposts are not the same as mine

How would you feel if they just announced a new exotic gun, and you can get it for $8 (or whatever a twitch prime membership costs)?

Terrible!

How is it significantly different from paying for this season? I’d argue that the exclusive exotics are a pretty significant portion of the value proposition there.

locked

2191 views

How is it significantly different from paying for this season? I’d argue that the exclusive exotics are a pretty significant portion of the value proposition there.

I already dislike that you get an Exotic at level 1 of the Season pass as well (especially as Eriana's Vow has an advantage over all other Exotics in PvE). And that you get a boost to catalyst progress. And lots of other things about the Season Pass track, frankly.

This is the same, only more candid, more expensive, and of even lesser value than the season pass Exotic. Hard to argue that it's not worse, but I'd accept "equally gross" as a jumping-off point.

I fail to see how "this thing already in the game is also bad" is a valid counterpoint, mind.

locked

2179 views

Would you have them just not add new gear to the game, then? Surely you don't expect them to make new content for the game and just give it away for free?

I'm not only talking about exotics that you get at the start of the season pass. You cannot get Bastion if you don't have the pass, correct? Or Devil's Ruin? At some point, how different is that from paying for SUROS? Are you paying for the quest or for the gear?

It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem, not for me.

locked

2202 views

Those are content sold as part of the Season and earned through seasonal quests. You dont get instantaneous access to them (though Devil's ruin was essentilly a gimme). You can't just pay for them to appear in your Post Office. You cant pay extra to get them ahead of other players or without putting in the same effort as others.

I dislike that they're time-limited, of course (though it's possible they won't be, as the S8 Bow is still available to some extent), but it seems like a pretty obvious false equivalency if you ask me.

locked

2210 views

But again for the slow folks at the back. YOU CAN NOW PAY REAL MONEY FOR A NON-COSMETIC IN-GAME BENEFIT WITH A REAL GAMEPLAY ADVANTAGE

You can now pay real money for a consumer goods delivery/video streaming/photo storage service that is owned by someone who also owns a game streaming service with a long history of giving those members things in games they have partnered with who now will give Regime in-game to people (I can’t say I recall anyone saying that weapon is a benefit to anyone since the first month of D1 and anyone who has tried to activate the catalyst would likely say it is just the opposite.)

Even setting aside the questionable value of the item, the causality is so remote it’s hard for me to see this as a line they crossed, but I guess so?

Still, if this is the bee in your bonnet, how is that paying to level up your characters thing not far far worse?

locked

2158 views

Still, if this is the bee in your bonnet, how is that paying to level up your characters thing not far far worse

Oh that's pretty disgusting too. Especially considering you can level a second character from 750 to 900 in about 10 minutes on your own.

Like I said somewhere else, this isn't the first shitty thing. But it's yet another shitty thing, and probably the closest to the conventional P2W concern.

I'm not content with the "Bungie already suck, stop expecting better of them argument". Cause I like bongle, and I'd like them to stop being shitty.

I also refuse to just accept it and not make a fuss every time they do something new that's shitty.

locked

2152 views

Not p2w, because a 2 year old off-meta gun without its catalyst isn’t going to make anyone “win” in any measure that matters.

locked

2243 views

Besides which, it's still a real-money leg up. Less so for you and I perhaps. But a paid-for boost to performance/collection/Xur engram lootpool.

locked

2203 views

I just disagree with the root of your supposition that having SUROS is a “leg up” or “performance boost” in a way where an assumed monetary investment will directly correlate to winning.

locked

2193 views

Y'all are very literal about P2W.

If it was Izanagi would that be P2W? Or does it have to mean in PvP? What if it was Luna's? But you still have to aim well. Does it have to be a literal aimbot?

At almost any point you can claim "well it's not enough of a boost to constitute "winning" "

locked

2234 views

As I am not a part of a collective mind, I can only speak for myself. And honestly? I’d significantly dislike if payment were an option for any quest-based reward, but likely would disagree with any p2w assessment. If a weapon that is statistically and empirically better than equivalents and is only available via real money that would be p2w. Because you are paying for an actual edge.

locked

2194 views

Maybe its me who has a weird definition of P2W (based on this thread).

It's still gross as hell though.

Interestingly, as someone who only has Suros and DARCI yet to unlock from Y1, this would genuinely guarantee my next Xur engram drops DARCI. Which really would be a significant advantage for me as a New Light player with no access to Izanagi.

locked

2183 views

Maybe its me who has a weird definition of P2W (based on this thread).

It's still gross as hell though.

P2W is typically generalized to mean the ability to spend money for things that others have to unlock that affect gameplay in any sense.

Interestingly, as someone who only has Suros and DARCI yet to unlock from Y1, this would genuinely guarantee my next Xur engram drops DARCI. Which really would be a significant advantage for me as a New Light player with no access to Izanagi.

Don't Xur's engrams only drop armor?

locked

2192 views

Don't Xur's engrams only drop armor?

Only if all World Drop Weapons have already been acquired. Now the functionality of regular Exotic Engrams work the same way.

locked

2182 views

Maybe its me who has a weird definition of P2W (based on this thread).

It's still gross as hell though.

P2W is typically generalized to mean the ability to spend money for things that others have to unlock that affect gameplay in any sense.

Oh phew, I'm not going completwly mad then.

Interestingly, as someone who only has Suros and DARCI yet to unlock from Y1, this would genuinely guarantee my next Xur engram drops DARCI. Which really would be a significant advantage for me as a New Light player with no access to Izanagi.

Don't Xur's engrams only drop armor?

Nah, my Sweet Business and er.. Hard Light? Were both from xur engrams. Unless they've changed it this season which is entirey possible.

locked

2163 views

Don't Xur's engrams only drop armor?

Nah, my Sweet Business and er.. Hard Light? Were both from xur engrams. Unless they've changed it this season which is entirey possible.

I have no clue about the general rules for the engram, but if you're down to a limited number of unobtained exotics, they're in the pool whether they're weapons or armor. (As soon as cross-save went live, I logged into my PS4 account and bought an engram from Xur; it was, as expected, Wavesplitter, which wasn't at that time available yet on Xbox. I couldn't use it for another few weeks on Xbox... but I received it because it was the only non-quest/non-raid exotic I didn't have yet.)

locked

2175 views

Besides which, it's still a real-money leg up. Less so for you and I perhaps. But a paid-for boost to performance/collection/Xur engram lootpool.

"Lol cosmetic microtransactions, who'd want that?!"
"Okay, those suck but non cosmetic items suck even more"
"Well, I guess cosmetics are okay"
"Oh, this non cosmetic item isn't really that bad"

What comes next?

locked

2198 views

- No text -

locked

2186 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Ugh, you can now buy SUROS Regime with real money (Destiny)

Ugh, you can now buy SUROS Regime with real money

Bit reductive and you know it

Bit reductive and you know it

Bit reductive and you know it

Based on this thread and the reddit post...

Who cares?

Who cares?

Who cares?

Who cares?

You said "Who cares?" Plenty of people care.

But cheapLEY doesn't. Therefore nor should we

Take that shit somewhere else.

I'm sorry, was that not the Tl;Dr of your aggressive apathy?

No.

Words Mean Things

Words Mean Things

They're both dismissive, only one is valid.

Who cares?

Who cares?

Someone will

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Hold Up

Hold Up

I'll stop getting angry about it when they stop doing it

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

Where are you getting that?

X Doubt

X Doubt

X Doubt

X Doubt

That's sort of my point

Who cares?

Who cares?

Lemme fix that for you

Lemme fix that for you

Not really how words work, is it

Addendum

Addendum

Addendum

Addendum

Not the least bit unfair.

Not the least bit unfair.

Not sarcasm

Oh its a Trump thing.

Replied to wrong parent post. RIP.

Being a jerk.

Thanks for voicing your (and my) thoughts succinctly

+1

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

"Narc is reading too much into it" *conjures 3 paragraphs*

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Being a jerk.

Y'all goin' to make Wu turn this car around.

Being a jerk.

The Last Word

I Just Want To Say.

"Narc is reading too much into it" conjures 3 paragraphs

thinking emoji