Sure, if the DLC isn’t cut content from the game. That’s the problem. If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game. DLC, should it be developed at all, should be an expansion beyond the original scope of development funded by the excess profit from the game.
the worst fucking offender at this has to be Mass Effect, and this is coming from someone who deeply loves Mass Effect.
I don’t buy DLC on principle, I will buy a proper expansion but not a DLC, so when I started Mass Effect 3 I didn’t understand what the fuck was going on. I had to google it because the start of the game ties in with a DLC from the second game, what a crock of shit.
Yep big fan is Mass Effect here and I will FOREVER be mad at the Day one DLC for Javik. I finally got him in Legendary Edition and oh my God, he is so essential to so many stories, especially Thesia mission. Like holy shit!
I think the start of Mass Effects 3 they change it based off of if you played the DLC of Arrival. Because from my understanding, Shepard is in jail because they work with Cerberus, whereas if you have the DLC it’s because of the Batarians.
I dont think you’re thinking about this right. Stuff like DLC has never been funded from profits of a specific game, that’s not how company finances work. They may decide to create an expansion or extension of a product they weren’t planning if a product does better than expected, but a lot of time, it’s too late by then and you’ve missed the wave to capitalize on the success. Most things like this are planned pretty early on based on the projected success. The base game and the DLC might even have separate budgets.
And all that to say, the DLC shouldn’t factor into your evaluation of a game at all. If you would like the amount of content in the game if the DLC never existed, then they added enough. You aren’t owed more content because of when they developed it, that’s absurd thinking. And if it for some reason got coded into law, it wouldn’t make anyone add more content to the base game, they’d just wait until after the game is released to start developing it. Which would make for a worse experience for both the company and consumer.
I agree with the person you replied to: if a game feels incomplete, then that’s the problem. I’m not going to pay for an incomplete game, regardless if it has DLC or not. But if a game is complete and I enjoy it, I’ll pay for DLC to get more experience from it and it doesn’t matter to me when the DLC is developed.
Yeah I don’t understand this mindset. It’d be like saying it shouldn’t be allowed for cars to have different versions with more features because they were developed together. DLC is supposed to be an additional feature like lane assist or something. You can get just the base version for cheaper or you can get a version with more features but you pay more. If the product sucks without the extra features than the problem is an incomplete product.
I get that we want to pay less and get more, but they can’t give away stuff for free.
If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.
Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?
If the point you’re actually trying to make is “if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it”, then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn’t justify the price of a full game. That’s my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn’t have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing; but zero day one DLC released for any game has been anything but carving up a complete product into an incomplete main product and several DLCs to increase the price without increasing the price. Oblivion was the first example of this. Horse Armor was already developed.
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing
No, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make - “every example of X that has existed so far is Y” does not imply “by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y”.
You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can’t conclude “because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well”.
As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!
Day 1 DLC, no matter how optional it might be in practicality, is 100% a tactic to make people feel like they need to pay more to get the “complete” version of the game.
“_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _” does not imply “_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _”. That’s a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.
EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is “we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn’t work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we’d kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay”
‘Diversity of tactics’ is really important to achieve a goal. If all you do is sign petitions, no one will take you seriously. And if all you do is violent demonstrations, you’re gonna get treated as a hooligan with nothing to say.
You need dialogue to raise awareness, and protests to raise the pressure on politicians.
I think it’s pretty rude of you not to introduce yourself to the FBI agent assigned to you as you typed that out.
Gallows humor aside, this is incredibly important. Y’all need to read “How Nonviolence Protects the State” as well as “This NonViolence Shit Will Get You Killed.”
maybe they’re really into creepy sexist jokes and defending paedophiles and they figured RMS would overlook the licensing to support some fellow travelers…
There was this whole thing called the Soviet Union then there was like a missile crisis
And there was like a group that called themselves National Socialists and they did a genocide and tried to take over a bunch of land by force
We also had to fight a bunch of talking trees that dug tunnels because military industrial complex and heroin
It’s definitely many layers of propaganda but as an American I definitely understand WHERE it comes from, I understand why most people here flinch at the word.
You also gotta understand we had multiple generations in a row huffing lead gasoline so while younger millennials aren’t impacted as bad, MOST Americans are legitimately lead brained.
It wasn’t just leaded gasoline. I was busy getting hot boxed with cigarettes in my grandparent’s leaded gasoline car before burning some asbestos, plastic cutlery, and batteries in the living room fireplace.
Forget no seatbelts or bicycle helmets. Our chemical exposure would probably send a younger person without a built up tolerance into instant seizure.
I also remember crimping down lead shot sinkers on my fishing line with my teeth. Good times. Good times indeed.
The Nazis were literally IN Europe. The USSR literally built a WALL here splitting the continent. And you’re saying that explains why America is the one with socialism PTSD???
Ain’t nothing more American than making everything about you I guess.
I guess you can’t fucking read lol, the comment I’m replying to was TALKING ABOUT AMERICANS. I didn’t make it about Americans the fucking European did.
But European don’t panic at the mention of socialism (what the comment you’re replying to was talking about) yet the Europeans have suffered FAR MORE from your examples of “socialism” than Americans. You can’t explain away how American politics differ from European politics by appropriating European tragedies.
You are so shoved up your own ass it’s insane. Firstly, really bad reading skills. I never justified the response, just that I understand the origins. For fucks sake use your brain a little before attacking someone and sounding like a dunce for it.
But it DOES NOT explain the origins. The USSR and the Nazis are not CAUSES. They CAN’T BE because otherwise Europe would never integrated elements of socialism!
I think we actually agree on that, it’s just semantics at this point. Whatever.
Also watch your aggressiveness. I didn’t call you names and I expect the same in return.
It’s not even semantics if you’re actively misunderstanding the definitions of words, but okay illiterate.
Don’t tell someone to watch their aggressiveness AFTER you started being a cunt. I expect you not to be a cunt to begin with, so why am I beholden to YOUR levels of response? Ridiculous to assume you set the bar when you already fucked right on past it to begin with.
The fucking ego on this guy, ffs
Also, “it can’t be the right answer because a different place with different culture did a different thing!”. Seriously? Did I not explain the lead brain and the propaganda? Or did you not read that? Oh wait, borderline illiterate yeah. Like I’m not justifying the response IM EXPLAINING THE ORIGIN OF IT.
If you can’t follow along then stop replying altogether here
Maybe I just suck at the research, but from what I can tell getting a permanent residence visa is not easy for Americans. If I’m wrong I would absolutely love to know.
France seems to be relatively easy to gain permanent residence and even citizenship, but they do expect you to learn fluent French. Most of the EU requires birthright citizenship. A few will grant it to the decedents of immigrants, like Ireland, though they only do it for two generations out.
Passports are $400+ USD, then there are the plane tickets, which are hundreds of dollars. Then to top it off you need to have room and board while looking for a job and someplace to live.
Another thing I’ve heard is fear of leaving the known and family.
Pretty much the only time we need passports is if we travel outside the U.S. and territories. Those that take cruises or cross borders to other countries would, but generally speaking a majority of Americans don’t have passports.
Eh for me it’s a lot of things. For one just roots, family and friends. Then next is work, I’d have to find a new job over there (doubtful my current one would let me work abroad), and I’d need to see if visas would let me work over there, and for how long. I would probably make less over there, but cost of living is lower too, so I’d have to do finances. Most countries don’t let you own property unless you’re a citizen, and I wouldn’t be, so I’d have to rent for a while. Path to citizenship would then be difficult, and I would have to pay taxes for both countries. Then just pure logistics of what do I do with everything here, would have to basically start all over. It’d be much easier if I was in my early 20s, but I’m nearing 40 which makes it much more difficult.
There is usually something like needing $250K in the bank to be considered for permanent residency. Then the paperwork costs money, so most Americans will have to wait until they get refugee status.
Several things keep Americans from moving to Europe.
First, immigration laws of the country one is moving to. If one is not able to get a passport from an EU or EEA county based on ancestry, you basically need to be sponsored for a work visa by a company in the country you want to move to, which can be quite difficult. And even then, you have to be employed in that country for long enough to qualify for permanent residency, then citizenship, which can take up to 7 or 8 years in some countries.
If one is lucky enough to have parents or grandparents who emigrated to the US from a European country and can claim citizenship based on that, it’s a lot of work to get all of the paperwork together and verified and accepted by that government’s consulate (at least it is for Germany, but German bureaucracy is … special).
Second, the US is one of the only countries in the world that double taxes its citizens. If someone was born in the United States, they will have to file taxes reporting income to the US government every single year until they die, and PAY taxes to the US government on any income over a certain amount every year until they die, regardless of the source of that income, and regardless of the fact that taxes on the same income need to be paid to the host country.
While I have zero respect for the snivelling shitgibbon name Boris Johnson, he was born in New York and had to renounce his US citizenship to escape the IRS. You also have to PAY the US government $2350 (in cash) for the privilege of giving up your citizenship, which is also…unique.
Sometimes there are tax treaties that can take most of the sting out of the double taxation issue (Norway’s is decent for US citizens), but it depends on the country.
Finally, it just never occurs to many Americans that leaving is even a possibility.
In all fairness, we panic and reach for our guns at the mention of just about anything. Right this very moment, I’m pooping on company time, scared out of my wits, a nine millimeter at the ready atop my presently ankle adorning boxers.
You know, these sorts of jokes are very similar to the subject they depict… used to be everywhere on the internet, not very funny and now they’re dead.
Yeah this is what I meant. In the early days of the interwebs it wasn’t uncommon to be afraid of clicking a hyperlink on the off chance it’s cheese pizza.
"I added taverns to fortress mode, so the dwarves will go to a proper establishment, get mugs, and make orders, and they’ll drink in the mug," Adams said. "And, you know, things happen, mugs get spilled, there’s some alcohol on the ground.
"Now, the cats would walk into the taverns, right, and because of the old blood footprint code from, like, eight years ago or something, they would get alcohol on their feet. It was originally so people could pad blood around, but now any liquid, right, so they get alcohol on their feet. And then I wanted to add cleaning stuff so when people were bathing, or I even made eyelids work for no reason, because I do random things sometimes. So cats will lick and clean themselves, and on a lark, when I made them clean themselves I’m like, ‘Well, it’s a cat. When you do lick cleaning, you actually ingest the thing that you’re cleaning off, right? They make hairballs, so they must swallow something, right?' And so the cats, when they cleaned the alcohol off their feet, they all got drunk. Because they were drinking.
But the numbers were off on that. I had never thought about, you know, activating inebriation syndromes back when I was adding the cleaning stuff. I was just like, ‘Well, they ingest it and they get a full dose,’ but a full dose is a whole mug of alcohol for a cat-sized creature, and it does all the blood alcohol size-based calculations, so the cats would get sick and vomit all over the tavern."
after the update there were so many dead cats everywhere. alcohol is a solution, and all that.
It does literally refer to penis size. Hiding it behind the word “energy” is just obfuscation. It reminds me of racist people defending the N word by saying, “there’s black people, then there’s Ns. Black people are fine, Ns aren’t.”
You’re just kicking the can down the road. It’s the exact same idea, phrased differently. You just wanna say “small dick” and get away with it, that’s all.
Lmao you have such debate lord energy, the meme i shared literally says your pp size doesn’t matter. The fact that you equated BDE with using the N word shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Yeah, you say dick size doesn’t actually matter, but you’re still talking about dick size. The word “energy” is just an excuse, so you can say “small dick” without being called out.
See, you still show no evidence you have any clue what I’m saying, so how can I take you seriously? I never said it is “like droping hard Rs”. Seriously, get up to speed or get lost.
Here’s an actual, completely serious input for you: If you want people to take you seriously and actually engage, don’t start by comparing them to outspoken racists. People will prefer to roast you
I’m not. I didn’t realise people would be so confused by analogies.
I compared the rhetoric. That’s the point of such devices. You don’t have to be a racist to use similar logic to them.
This isn’t complicated whatsoever.
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
Explain how the comparison is “dumbass”, or admit you’re just wrong.
Anyone can just make claims without justifying them. I claim trees speak German. I will elaborate no further!
pretend I’m smart by invoking latin shit too:
Um, you think that’s all I was doing there? Just saying random Latin?
You do realise this is just… you admitting you don’t know what reductio ad absurdum is?
And you’re acting like that proves anything other than that you’re ill-equipped to discuss rhetoric?
I’ll explain: reductio ad absurdum is a common rhetorical device whereby you take someone’s logic, and apply it to the most extreme example, to show how the logic fails. It literally means “reduction to the absurd”.
Here’s an example:
What you just did now? Saying “I can invoke random Latin shit”? That’s like you, in court, objecting to a lawyer using the term “mens rea”, and saying they’re just “invoking latin shit”, because you don’t realise it is in fact a common term in that context, and instead think they’re just showing off.
Psst, let me share a little secret. What I said wasn’t random it’s another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical, but I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning. I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I’ve ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.
What I said wasn’t random it’s another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical
What? “I can invoke latin shit too?” You were trying to wield that against me in a “look, this is how you look” kinda move? When I never did that or anything like that? Well, cool. I hope you had fun, but it was a waste of time.
I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning
I’m not “flaunting” I’m explaining, because it appeared to be a roadblock for you. You didn’t respond to it, but simply point at it and the fact it was Latin. You gave every indication of being stumped. Should I instead have just mocked you and allowed the conversation to come to a standstill? I was trying to explain my point to you.
This isn’t a fucking fight. It’s a conversation. I’m trying to be even-handed and fair, here.
I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I’ve ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.
I’m not sure you’re using “poignant” correctly, there. But nothing about this comment I’m responding to makes any sense whatsoever in context, so that’s just par for the course, it seems.
Also, why would I call that an ad hominem? Your guesses and estimations about me thus far have been completely off the mark, so what makes you think this one will hit?
All that said, are you ready to get back on topic?
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
I could see how the phrase implies that, however this meme subverts that by saying that dick size doesn’t matter as much as your energy does. And the meme literally says that small dick energy is bad, not having a small pp.
Bruh the only time I’ve ever used the term BDE is to imply that the size of your pp doesn’t matter with this meme. Im sorry its upset you, but i dont really care. Trans men can have BDE without even having a dick. YOU are the one implying that small dicks are bad, not me.
Honestly your whole argument is very reminiscent of people in the early 2000s using the word “gay” synonymously with “bad” and insisting it’s not only inoffensive to gay people but that anyone who thinks otherwise is the real homophobe.
The whole “big/small dick energy” things is inherently rooted in body shaming for reasons that have already been pointed out. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t mean it in that way or that you’re trying to flip the script by saying your energy doesn’t necessarily reflect or corporate to your penis size.
Calling someone gay in the 2000’s was not synonymous with calling somone bad, it was synonymous with calling somone homosexual. Gay originally meant lighthearted or carefree. I got called Gay all the time in the 2000’s when I was in high school, the kids never implied it was bad just that I was a homosexual, to which my defense was that I was a Lesbian trapped in a Man’s body so I wasnt gay cause I was attracted to women. The church I went to sure as shit implied that being gay was a sin, but calling somone gay was NOT synonymous with calling them bad. It was used for calling peers out for acting outside of accepted social norms, such as homosexual behavior largely was at the time and still is in some places.
Were you not a (pre-)teen in the 2000s? Because the phrase, “nah, that’s gay” was bandied about quite a lot by teenage boys and men with the mentality of teenage boys quite a lot.
I graduated High School in the 2000s. And yeah I heard, “nah, thats gay” ALOT but its was almost always in reference to things boys didnt want to do cause they thought it would make them look gay if they did it. ie.
I think it’s analogous to referring to balls the size of wrecking balls or something. I don’t know of anyone who thinks bigger physical balls are superior to smaller balls, but the phrase is still common to denote courage. I think big dick energy is not as decoupled from people’s biology as big balls, but it’s still mostly decoupled in common usage.
Or just call it what it is. “States rights was a euphemism for slavery then, and the second they could violate it with the fugitive slave act they did, it was a euphemism for segregation under Goldwater and make no mistake he’d ban it in a heartbeat. It has never been a legitimate argument, just the take of someone afraid to say a position that would cost them any chance of cooperation”
Another interesting note I bring into the states rights argument is that the south wanted to force the north to send back escaped people and were actually sending people into the north to kidnap black people, many of whom were never born slaves.
So yeah the north wanted the right to gives rights to the people in it, and the south thought that didn’t apply to black people.
So yeah the north wanted the right to gives rights to the people in it, and the south thought that didn’t apply to black people.
I think that gives a bit too much credit to the vast majority of Union citizens. Yes there were some groups of Quakers who actually believed in freeing slaves and protecting their rights, but that was a minority opinion .
The majority of people in the union disagreed with slavery for economic and political reasons that were unattached to the morality of slavery. Even progressive politicians like Abe Lincoln who wanted to free slaves, also wanted them to be shipped to the Dominican Republic or Africa afterwards.
The war did polarize people into holding stronger opinions than they did before though.
Even if they started as unionists more than anything else, being opposed to the South turned into also opposing what they stood for. As evidenced by a lot of the most popular northern camp songs, matches and letters, it didn’t take long for “hang Jeff davis, the traitorous scoundrel” to turn into “hang Jeff Davis, the traitorous, slaving scoundrel. Let’s shoot rebels in the name of freedom!”.
Wanting to shoot confederates is a weird reason to become pro emancipation, but I’ll take it.
Agrarian South vs. Industrialized North made for an unfair trade balance. You can hardly trade a bale of cotton for a steam engine, that kinda idea I believe. Been 30+ since college American History, forgot the exact gripes.
We could probably find these disputes in the various Letters of Secession. They almost all start with slavery, but there were other complaints.
EDIT: Oh fuck me, I’m wrong again. The linked are merely the official ordinances, not Letters of Succession. Hence why they’re all dry legalese. But I did arouse your curiosity about Mississippi, so here go their letter.
It means “disassemble all checks and balances, strip the people of all power and authority, and concentrate the power and authority into the hands of a chosen party-aligned dictator or oligarchy.”
Small government doesn’t get any smaller than a totalitarian dictatorship.
Adult mortality increased enormously in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union when the Soviet system collapsed 30 years ago. archive.ph/9Z12u
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
From 1989-1998, Hungary was a failing democracy. Since 1998 it gradually became Viktor Orban’s private kingdom.
It doesn’t mean that communism is wrong (as you’ve provided multiple examples here that I haven’t checked), but in the case of Hungary I’d say it is complicated.
The trajectory Hungary took after transition to capitalism mirrors what happened in most post USSR states. This just further supports the point that the communist system was better.
What happened in countries like Hungary and Poland is a direct result of the transition to capitalism however. What’s more this transition happened under the best possible conditions. The transition happened largely democratically without any violent revolutions, and these countries got support from the west to soften economic impact of the transition. Yet, despite all that we see that majority of post Soviet countries end up going in a similar direction under capitalism. Again, Hungary isn’t an outlier here.
Ok, so it is not nostalgia, bad management, corruption, disillusionment “of how great capitalism is”… it is only that post Soviet nations had it better during the communist era and thus are better managed as Communist nations.
Whelp, I’ll just remain a skeptic.
I wish the post Soviet nations, completely unsarcastically, good luck in the next elections or revolution. I would be happy to see the communist ideology continue to thrive in the face of capitalist debt slavery, and the contemptuous bourgeoisie.
Thing is that bad management, corruption, and so on, have happened in every human society that has ever existed. A political system isn’t magically going to change that. What a political system can do however is create different selection pressures for behavior. Capitalist system selects for different kinds of behaviors than a communist one. As we see with the case of transition from communism to capitalism in eastern Europe, the selection pressures of capitalism result in far worse things happening than under communism.
Idealistically? Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. Capitalism will always encourage unfair competition, whereas socialism will strive to end it by its very definition.
I’m just still unconvinced that the post Soviet nations, as a whole, suffer the same “communism withdrawal symptom”. The systematic pressures might be so that switching to Communism now will simply fail again (and let’s not forget the dear old CIA… eh?).
Again, hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see the point you’re making as clearly as you do. I think it is a more complicated situation, but I sure do think that being more socialist wouldn’t hurt them.
And I can’t repeat this enough, remove Orban the dictator from power.
Unfortunately, I expect that things are going to get worse before they get better. I don’t think people who are in power now will simply let it go the way communists did.
Hard agree. Our government will wreck the economy just to die on two hills: social conservatism (EU funding says hi) and russian reliance. Russian gas, russian atom (x2) because they want to build Paks II. They also gerrymandered the everliving fuck out of electoral districts so they can win their precious supermajority. I hope they fail on at least one of the aforementioned hills so they can drop the ball like the now-opposition did in 2006. As for communism, well, the 72% seems very wrong. Sure we had dictatorship-lite, but 1956 happened beforehand, to which we lost many of our schools for example. Plenty of (grand+)parents’ tales paint communism like it was the worst thing that could possibly have happened. Also, if 72% of people preferred communism, then surely the dem. socialist party would Poll higher than 3%.
Reminder that fidesz (the govt party) was originally anti-communist. (I am Hungarian if it wasn’t obvious).
God how hard it will be for people to realise how fucking stupid making more russian reactors and signing more russian gas contracts are. Our electoral system is in shambles^1^. social issues are overwhelmingly conservative here. The bigger green party is anti-gLObaLisM. The neo-na**s have the same amount of seats as green party number 1.
^1^: 2022: Popular vote: 54,13% Fidesz-KDNP; 34,44% United Opposition; 5,88% Our Homeland (neo-na**s). cf district votes: Fidesz-KDNP 87, United Opposition 19.
Mixed system so parliament makeup (199 seats) is 135 seats - 67,84% for Fidesz-KDNP; 57 seats - 28,64% for United Opposition; 6 seats - 3,02% for Our Homeland; and 1 seat for German national representation thing.
lemmy.ml
Top