Games

16689 readers

799 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO

295

Dragon's Dogma 2 mods negate the need for microtransactions on PC (www.eurogamer.net)

submitted 7 months ago by nanoUFO to c/games

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is the slope having already slipped.

It's not a fallacy to say that this is gameplay features for pay and I am only ok with cosmetics being for pay in a game that isn't free at its base.

I don't want to let them move that goalpost.

Also, not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

While it is possible that a company like Capcom, driven to increase its profit margin, and having normalized pay-to-win-through-convenience-features in this game would choose to not do more pay-to-win options with deeper gameplay impacts in a future game.

Being vocal about hating this game's micro-transactions, especially with the reviews going so negative, is one of the only ways we can communicate that we don't want either.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I never said all Slippery Slope are incorrect. I just think this isn't one of them

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

In order for an argument to be a slippery slope argument it needs to require that step one leads to step two.

My argument wasn't even a slippery slope argument and is therefore not the slippery slope fallacy.

My claim was that normalizing this type of pay-to-win-light game design makes it easier for them to normalize pay-to-win-full game design. It did not claim that normalizing this will lead to normalizing that.

I don't want either in my games.

If we push back against this now it should make them think twice about considering full pay-to-win single player non-free games, because it could have a much bigger backlash. Which is what I was saying.