Sticky said:
By the shoddy day-1 DLC business practice? You need to look no further than a few years ago when Capcom putting Day 1 DLC on the MVC3 disc was viewed as the worst thing to ever happen to video games, now being viewed as the industry practice as usual. So if you were not being sarcastic, I would have to ask you to research this topic further.
That just proves my point about how alarmist commentators on video games are.
Sticky said:
You say Jim is 'usually' wrong on this topic (your opinion, yes?) but he's actually right about this topic more often than not, and has supported it with good research on the industry and evidence that it is destructive and harmful. You on the other hand have made a post on the internet saying that you're unable to see the damage for whatever reason. I'm more inclined to believe Jim on this issue.
No, I said he was "often" wrong. That's not the same as "usually." And while he's usually right about the facts of the matter, I would call his reactions to and conclusions reached from those facts overly alarmist and sensationalistic.
Again, I'd like to see the harm done. Who has been harmed? Has anybody been misled, or purchased a product they didn't want to because of DLC? Has anybody been injured? Has DLC caused anybody's game consoles to break?
Sticky said:
You admit that it's happening yet don't see how it has affected the industry? I'm confused if you're intentionally ignoring the problem or not. And if you are intentionally ignoring the problem, then I don't see why you have any stake in this argument or conversation.
Maybe you could point out a problem that I am ignoring. The way I see it:
Industry sells games with DLC. people buy DLC. Industry releases more games with DLC. People continue to buy.
Seems like everything is working fine. If it was harming the industry, then the industry would probably stop doing it. If it was harming consumers, then they would probably stop buying. That's how a market works. Now, if people are continuing to buy products that are harming them, then I suppose there's something masochistic or irrational about that customer. But I think it's overly presumptuous to assume that people aren't capable of making their own purchasing decisions. Just because somebody buys something you don't like, doesn't mean they are being harmed.
Sticky said:
And then we get into THIS argument. Every thread we have to have this discussion by someone who I can only assume lives in a convent or a monastery spending their time tending to the poor and starved orphans in Africa so they can play the "I'm too busy worrying about the world's problems to discuss video games!" card on a video game forum. Since you probably don't do these things, I can't actually imagine why you bring up that you're too focused on the world and it's problems while simultaneously spending your time posting about video games on the video game forum.
I never said anything of the sort. When did I ever say or imply that I was too busy thinking about the world's problems? All I said was that it's a trivial thing to get so worked up over.
Sticky said:
Fortunately, last thread even, I discussed in-depth why trying to use the starving children as a shield for your internet argument is selfish and hypocritical to an almost absurd degree. I'll just repost that now.
Seeing as nobody put that argument forth, I'm not sure why you are trying to argue with it.
Sticky said:
So you're arguing semantics instead of trying to defend an argument that you decided to bring up. Are we done here? I feel there isn't much of anything you can say at this point to paint yourself as someone who cares enough about the industry to actually say anything rational regarding it.
Uh, no. I'm not "using semantics" - and I have said plenty here to defend my argument. It actually seems more like you've gone off the topic (onto starving children, etc) - and you haven't addressed my arguments on the topic of the ethics of DLC. All you've said is "this is bad and harming people" but have not given any evidence of this harm.
Well, additionally to that you also seem to be pushing the idea of groupthink - that everybody should feel the same as you, and any disagreement must be the result of being uninformed. That we are somehow obligated to rally against the evil forces of DLC and games publishers. It's funny how much people here rail against "political correctness" and conformity, yet here you are, pushing literal conformity to a single viewpoint.
Really, it won't hurt you to have somebody disagree with you.