{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/4/2015 12:35:48 PM
33
To correct you point by point:
[quote]The Kotaku article sheds light on the fact that Bungie and Activision cut up Vanilla Destiny to be sold separately...The article shows that not only was the game cut up, but that it was cut up for the sole purpose of being sold separately at a premium just so they could squeeze more money out of us.[/quote]Nowhere and in no fashion was this written. In fact, it was directly contradicted. TDB was written in 9 weeks, AFTER the release of the vanilla game. I'm getting that directly from the same article you supposedly read. But because it had the words "content" and "cut" in it, you believe it backs up your view that there was a "cut content" scam.
[quote]Microtransactions are introduced into a game that most of us have paid over $120 for[/quote]Transactions for items that are 100% optional and 100% cosmetic. Please make your point.
[quote]Look at all the games that have been released since Destiny launched and look at how many have used the kind of underhanded tactics that has been used with Destiny.[/quote]Please find me any major game that does not have a season pass or other add-on content that must be paid for to experience everything the game has to offer. The Batman games have add-on content. Call of Duty and Battlefield have map packs which, if not purchased, mean you will slowly have more and more trouble getting into multiplayer matches (and admit it, multiplayer is the core of those games).
[quote] You are just like a battered wife[/quote]This analogy trivializes REAL domestic abuse in a way I can't begin to explain. Actual domestic abuse costs lives. All Destiny costs is money. If I'm ever dissatisfied with the money it costs compared with the entertainment it gives, I'll stop, simple as that.
Are you interested in helping REAL victims of domestic abuse? Go donate or volunteer at a shelter. Do something USEFUL with your time.
This? This was not useful.
English
-
You. I like you.
-
"I think you're missing the point. OP is attempting to give you a wake-up call about the practices Bungie employs to exploit its customers, and more broadly, the state of the gaming industry as a whole. It's not about whether he personally buys these games or not - he's frustrated watching the way these companies have taken gaming and made financially milking the player the priority over making the game as good/fun/satisfying as it could have really been. If we keep accepting this as the norm and paying premiums for these paper-thin portions, these companies are going to keep pushing the limit of how far they can exploit us. You do understand that, right? Right?"
-
Yeah the point was missed. It was just an opportunity to come in and act like an ass and be a defender of corporate greed. Now lets standby and wait for the how "it is morally OK to rip people off in a capitalist society" reply.
-
Or perhaps they were pointing out the flaws in the logic of the post? The only asshole is the Op.
-
Quoting this for universal use
-
Didn't the article say that the dreadnought and oryx were already designed and in the vanilla version, but then cut out? The only rewriting done would have been attempting to rearrange content that was already present to make some semblence of sense.
-
No, it did not. It said the Dreadnought was originally PLANNED to appear in the vanilla story. The same story where Rasputin was a grumpy Exo that we would rescue from the Hive (who kidnapped him and took him to the Dreadnought), and a character named Crow was the character model that became the Queen's brother. "Planned to appear" is not the same as "fully programmed and realized". Bungie basically re-wrote most of the game in about a year, according to the article. Read it again.
-
And BTW, the article said "cut and moved." Not "planned to appear." Don't come off as a pretentious know it all if you can't even quote it correctly.
-
I'm not going to, but thanks.
-
You are correct - I remember reading that as well.
-
You didn't read exactly that. Look again.
-
Yes, actually. I went back to the Kotaku article and that was part of the original 2013 story. That's the problem with you only thinking in absolutes - occasionally you can be absolutely wrong.
-
wow.. you sure lit a fire under his ass.
-
Looks like OP is the battered wife now ;)
-
Dude. That's... not very cool.
-
Thank you.
-
You're welcome.
-
Don't listen to these asshats - you sound like, I don't know... a human being with a reading grade-level that he can't count simply on two hands. You sound like someone who actually understands more than their shitty pizza delivery job, Cheetos, and their mother's basement. Dog of War - I pity you as I pity myself for having to swim through this sea of idiots.
-
Although, full disclosure, I do enjoy Cheetos from time to time.
-
Well, of course. I mean... they [i]are[/i] tasty.
-
Dude, you come off like an attorney offering his services to a multi-million dollar corporation pro bono. It's pretty sad, really.
-
Either that, or, just throwing this possibility out, I'm disagreeing with the OP because 1) the article he claims "proves" his point does no such thing, and 2) I have known victims of abuse and the analogy is offensive. Also, 3), he has 2 Level 40 characters, so clearly he himself can't break away from this "relationship". If the game is not good value for money, you, I, or the OP are free to leave at any time. Obviously, the game is enjoyable. This is merely a whiny cry that it costs more than $20. What's sad to me is that you don't have a counterargument, merely an ad hominem attack on "how I come off". I don't apologize for having an education and knowing how to connect thoughts together logically. If we had some more of it around here, we would have fewer of these threads.
-
You'll see my counterargument in other posts I made in this thread, I'm not going to repeat it for every person who defends Bungievision. If you're hanging on his battered wife analogy (which I agree wasn't a great one), then you're creating a strawman argument by attacking something largely irrelevant in order to discredit or draw attention away from his underlying point. Now, let me address the "cut-up" comment the OP made and the article he referenced for his point. If the article is based on truth, it was indeed stated that Bungie re-purposed content that was originally slated to appear much earlier on in the game under Joe Staten's version. It also states that they put together a round-table whose objective was to figure out how to reintroduce the dissected content into the game. While it stops short of stating that they did this for the sole purpose of selling it for maximum profit later, that seems to be what ended up happening at some point in the timetable. Here, you're attacking minutia such as semantics/misquotes instead of acknowledge the OP's overall point. The small-minded might have read that and thought you turned the tide of the argument but all you did was spin it in an irrelevant direction. Seems to be your go-to tactic. So, now let's talk about your attempt to rationalize that the game itself must be good/enjoyable because someone can't stop coming back to it. Do you also rationalize that about all people addicted to gambling? It might alleviate a nagging itch/impulse for him to play this game but that doesn't mean it meets his expectations of what this game should/could have been. In the case of Destiny, it seems like they focused on trying to make it addictive and [i]then[/i] build a game around those addictive components. Now, if you want to defend that as simply being "good game design", go ahead but know which side you're on. Hint: it's not the side of the consumer and the fact that you are in fact a consumers and still choose to view that as good game design is sad. It has to qualify as some category of Stockholm syndrome.
-
You mean he presented logical counter points using the authors own linked references to refute what a naive child who made an insulting analogy claimed? Oh yes we should shame him for bringing that kind of rational debate to a board littered with spoiled children and entitled millennials.
-
Hey hey, I'm not entitled. I got what I paid for, more or less.
