Pay 2 Win Acceptance
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Wow. A bunch of really whiny idiots not actually getting the point of comics they got butthurt over and had to go crying to tvtropes. I wish he was still making the comic... I'd start reading it again just to spite those morons.Yes, but but the creator of VG Cats got worse around 2014 and afterwards. I say he's just about as almost bad, or about the same as Ctrl+Alt. At the end of the day, they're just another group of jackasses who have over inflated egos, or their egos grew because the success of their web comic.
I'll leave you with these.
VG Cats / Dethroning Moment - TV Tropes
Behold the strips that make the readers wish that VG Cats was aborted from time. Don't worry, it'll recover. Keep in mind: Sign your entries One moment per work to a troper, if multiple entries are signed to the same troper the more recent one …tvtropes.org
VG Cats / YMMV - TV Tropes
Author's Saving Throw: After backlash for the joke about the death of Iwata being tasteless, the strip that had that joke was republished, with the joke and part of what led to it being removed, changing the strip's punchline. Discredited Meme: …
Not all entries are created equally, and while there are some petty ones (and there are in many a dethroning suck page), it does not invalidate the ones who have a point, or you can see where they're coming from. I did not even know he stopped making the comics. Even if he started making comics again, and you started reading them again to spite the haters, most of them wouldn't even care.
Agreed, I realize haters wouldn't care. And I also agree petty doesn't invalidate someone who has a legitimate criticism... its just in this case I didn't see any of them that were valid. But that's just my opinion, not everyone will agree with me siding with a creator over a portion of angry ex-fans in this instance.
For me its not just a question of being very strongly against p2win, its the idea I'm against all kind of manipulative game that tricks you into thinking to pay. Because no matter what it will always make me think that the game has been purposely designed to make you "lose" or "want that extra life". Countless of simple game like crossword, brick breaker, infinite idle, all have shop with offer that include, the [premium] pass that allow you to get more, a X$ per month to get more, the pay X$ to open a premium box right away, pay to skip, offering bundle of 100$ in the e-shop, etc...
but 99% of the time those are not worth a damn, I'm going to say it, NO GAME, none, should ask 100$+ for ANYTHING, I don't care that we are in a free market (Its doesnt make sense that a very simple brick breaker game can ask 14$ a month for basically cheating in game, 14$ a month is the price of WoW for god sake), a full fledged AAA game with season pass is 100$ or so, how the hell can you say that your half mediocre, half baked, riddle with ridiculous behavioral predatory system that prevent a nice play through even if I would have spend 20-30$. That is the problem, the amount of money you would need to spend to have the semblance of a full game, because if I look at some of the mobile, even if I would have spend 200-300$ and still not even be close to a "full game", im still going to be restricted by the next pay wall, by the next "no more energy to play", ithe next "wait gaming" stupidity, so, why the hell would you spend 100$ for less than a real game that restrict you and trick you into paying and get nothing? I even seen some people think that there could be some programming probability that would make you "lose" on purpose, like the game Candy crush, how can we know its not on purpose that the game is lost and you only have a few move left to win? I am sorry but I dont believe its a real random .
And I feel like its the same in game that are competitive, either you are faced against "stronger" player so you would want to spend more to grab those extra rarer cards.
At the end, I hate all pay to skip shenanigan, because at the end, we pay money and receive nothing in return, its just paying to SKIP waiting, nothing else, its not even a question of accessing more content like an expansion. Its just throwing money in garbage and at the end its just to pay the service rather than the game.
but 99% of the time those are not worth a damn, I'm going to say it, NO GAME, none, should ask 100$+ for ANYTHING, I don't care that we are in a free market (Its doesnt make sense that a very simple brick breaker game can ask 14$ a month for basically cheating in game, 14$ a month is the price of WoW for god sake), a full fledged AAA game with season pass is 100$ or so, how the hell can you say that your half mediocre, half baked, riddle with ridiculous behavioral predatory system that prevent a nice play through even if I would have spend 20-30$. That is the problem, the amount of money you would need to spend to have the semblance of a full game, because if I look at some of the mobile, even if I would have spend 200-300$ and still not even be close to a "full game", im still going to be restricted by the next pay wall, by the next "no more energy to play", ithe next "wait gaming" stupidity, so, why the hell would you spend 100$ for less than a real game that restrict you and trick you into paying and get nothing? I even seen some people think that there could be some programming probability that would make you "lose" on purpose, like the game Candy crush, how can we know its not on purpose that the game is lost and you only have a few move left to win? I am sorry but I dont believe its a real random .
And I feel like its the same in game that are competitive, either you are faced against "stronger" player so you would want to spend more to grab those extra rarer cards.
At the end, I hate all pay to skip shenanigan, because at the end, we pay money and receive nothing in return, its just paying to SKIP waiting, nothing else, its not even a question of accessing more content like an expansion. Its just throwing money in garbage and at the end its just to pay the service rather than the game.
Last edited:
The thing is that’s objectively the issue though. It’s the “real gamers” who are aware of and will fight this bs. Sadly that’s not always enough, as we see with how indifferent the bulk of casual gamers or kids with parents’ CCs are to it, which is I think what @immortalfrieza is getting at.
I noticed, but it doesn't excuse the "I know everything and better than you!" type attitude, just because of a disagreement.
No. You want a realist perspective, how about this: companies are not villains from toddler shows, and going "swiper no swiping!" three times in a row isn't going to make them suddenly stop their exploitive crap. Hell, the example most commonly brought up about how we have the power to change this (Battlefront 2) was less about consumer outcry and pushback than it was about European countries starting to look like they were going to start regulating everything and EA wanted to get out ahead of it.
I think the loop we're stuck in here is similar to the Democratic process: you can vote independent if you want to, but the next president WILL be a Democrat or a Republican. Voting on principle might content you, but it won't ultimately affect the whole. The games industry has found a way into gamers' pockets, and they won't taken them out without fistfuls of cash and we [collectively] have shown them they can reasonably expect to do so. Yes, some of us will swat them away, but we're by far and away the few.
