this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
487 points (98.8% liked)
Games
16849 readers
902 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:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What? Maybe I don't understand your phrasing correctly. Do you mean you DO trust the official statement? No shame in that, if that's what you want to say. Or do you want to say that you only trust the official statement if it's the first thing you hear about something? Then it gets confusing and I don't think you mean that.
Concerns and guesses about a persons intentions are indeed valid. I'd rather not let people punch me to learn their intentions, I'd rather keep my distance regardless of an innocent face. Metaphorically speaking. Thanks to goodeye8 I read more about the company and their stances and now think it's valid what they say. I will still be distrusting of companies, but maybe I'll do more research before commenting. Maybe.
Also, my guess always has precedence over anything other people state. I rather trust my eye rather than someone else's. Again, metaphor. But my guess can be (...steered? Guided? Influenced?) when given more proof from different sources.
Let me try to better explain.
We start with an absence of information. We don't know about DRM. We then have new information from an FAQ. Now I've not seen them lie about this before so I have no reason not to believe it right now. They could be lying sure, but anything could be. You could be AI, I could be the devs. No one knows anything is true really, we assume and work based on a level of trust. I have no reason to not believe him so I have confidence it won't have DRM. I don't "know" it won't, but based on the information I have I am more likely than not to believe them.
Now we have additional information, the writer add the "at launch" bit. Now this could mean at launch as in, it will never have it, even from the start. Or it could me they might add it later, it's a bit ambiguous but either way they just made that part up. Made up, ambiguous statements do not give me confidence one way or the other. It does not impact my perception of the situation at all. Their comment might as well have not existed IMO.
To work off your scenario of people punching you. I'd venture to guess multiple people get close enough to punch you ever day, but you trust they won't. But anyone could. You're operating off trust (which is based on past experience) and confidence. Same thing here. Without built or broken trust I'm neutral there, I only have confidence. Yes, they could be lying, but I don't have evidence that they would right now, so why worry about it? It would be like walking around worried that everyone is going to punch you.
What really kinda bothers me is you did the research and found that they do have a basis for trust but still refuse to accept that. Even stating that you may make statements like this in the future without looking things up. Maybe. Why? Why spread mistrust that isn't based in anything and might actually run counter to the facts, that's wild to me.
I agree that you should weigh multiple sources but you held something made up by a random person as a higher standard of truth than the person actually creating the game. It's logic of that kind that really throws me.
Those are a lot of words to say you have a positive outlook on live and don't understand and disagree with my more negative one.
The punching was probably a bad metaphor. Just another way of saying that trust needs to be earned. And that the rest of the industry (at least the AAA part) did really not earn it.
In the beginning I only read the title and intro and wrote a (in my opinion) funny text. Then it got taken seriously without getting questioned. Then someone got personal.
Now I see that I was wrong, after that same someone gave me enough resources to prove their point.
It doesn't mean another mishap where I don't read the text won't happen again.
If I want to write another snark comment of the type of "...why the overly specific denial?", I will. Even if all three of you are against it.
I will give it to Saber however that they are doing good work, provided by the information of the one telling me to get therapy over a comment. So they will be spared of my snark, until they change. If they change.