That is not a d-pad. That is a touchpad with a plus drawn on it.

Please explain to me how a lock-in model that forces you to keep paying forever in order to keep what you already paid for is better than just being able to buy something once and have it.

Where?

Is DBFZ predatory or not?

I’m done playing your weird word games. We’ve been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy simply because it involves DLC, and I take issue with you drawing that line. You can’t pretend you’re actually saying something else at the same time.

We can’t go back to an objectively worse model because no consumer in the world besides you would be okay with it now that a better model is possible. You cannot be serious trying to say you think we’d ever go backwards.

The current model is updating the game. Everyone gets to play the latest update even if you do not pay for the DLC.

I am also still baffled that you can somehow claim with a straight face that subscriptions are better. Subscriptions are a lock-in model that threaten you with losing everything as soon as you stop paying, so you’ll have to keep paying forever to keep your game. If anything in this conversation is predatory, it’s subscriptions!

It is not inseparable from predatory, because it is not predatory to begin with.

The idea that they should just make all DLC free is not a viable alternative.

Yes, I know how DLC works. And I disagree with your blanket opposition to all DLC ever.

I know what you said, and I know we’re on the same page because we’ve been talking about concrete examples where you say the DLC shouldn’t be allowed to be sold. I don’t know why you’re up here trying to play some silly semantics games.

No d-pad is an instant dealbreaker.

Edit: Y’know what I’ll properly expand on this. The Steam Controller failed because it tried to replace vital functionality people expect from a controller. The Steam Deck learned from this mistake and just supplemented that functionality.

TBH, the way I see it, the Steam Controller was designed for games I don’t want to play on controller, while being bad for games I do want to play on controller.

I did. I just didn’t give you the clean yes-or-no you’re prepared to posture about.

If I ask you a yes-or-no question, and you say ‘nuh-uh’, you did not answer the question. In fact, you haven’t answered a single question I’ve ever tried to ask you over the course of this conversation.

Do you play competitive fighting games at all? Do you know anything at all of this world?

Do you seriously think having to pay for every edition of SF2 and SF4 separately is somehow better than being able to continue playing against anyone even with the base game?

Should the games I know and love be able to exist in the form that made them the games I know and love?

You forgot your own examples include games that did not have this business model, but still plainly got made, and had major updates, and took a shitload of your money.

No, I gave you an example of a game that broke compatibility and was widely criticized for doing so. It is not a model that we should ever go back to, no one else in the world besides you likes that. The new model is better because it preserves compatibility. Do you understand the point I am making here?

I know you understand charging money for things inside a game can be abusive.

Yes, sometimes some things can be. But you’re arguing that everything is, and that is what I disagree with. And I feel that by being so aggressive towards things that are perfectly reasonable, you only end up making it harder to talk about real problems.

Can you go one interaction without the excessively hostile tone?

We started this conversation because you said that the act of selling anything at all in games is predatory.

If nothing costs money, nothing is sold. Are you trying to play dumb here?

I already told you that SF4 is exactly what people don’t want to go back to. The game was widely criticized for the fact that you had to buy every upgrade or be left behind. You might be the only person in the world who thinks that’s better than what we have now.

By the way, despite characters not being DLC when they should’ve been, SF4 did sell costume DLC, which you seem to think is the worst thing ever. IIRC, the kicker with SF4’s costumes is that your opponent couldn’t see them unless they also bought the costumes, and that was also something people disliked because they didn’t want to buy costumes no one will see.

You said “Nothing inside a video game should cost real money”. Those are your words. If you want to claim that your stance is actually something else, why did you say those words?

You didn’t answer the question.

It’s a good thing that this model allows them a source of revenue to develop more content, while still being able to offer patches for free so that players on the base game still get to enjoy compatibility. That’s good. The alternative is we either break compatibility, or the content doesn’t get made at all since you don’t seem to want anyone to get paid to make it.

I’m talking to you. You’re living in fantasy land claiming these games could be the exact same thing without the business model that made them possible. They would not.

Can I have the games that I know and love, in the format that allowed them to be the games that I know and love? There is no third option here.

There’s no shortage of games that have been successfully built around it. This is the whole basis for Rogue (1980). Games that are designed to be replayable would be far too repetitive if you only had a handful of premade levels.

But there also no shortage of games that didn’t feel like they used it well, games that could’ve been significantly improved with hand-crafted levels. I played Persona 5 before 4, and this stuck out to me like a sore thumb when I went back to 4.

Generally, if level design is a core focus of the game, then the levels gotta be designed. But if maps are just a backdrop for a more mechanics-focused game, randomization may help those mechanics shine.

I fundamentally disagree with your stance that any form of premium content is ‘predatory’. You know what you’re buying, and no one’s putting a gun to your head forcing you to buy it. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s predatory.

Predatory is when gambling-based business models obfuscate true costs and result in players literally financially ruining themselves. Predatory is when FOMO strategies are aggressively pushed to pressure consumers into buying things they otherwise wouldn’t. Predatory is when subscription services keep players locked into an ecosystem, with the threat that they’ll lose everything if they stop paying (and it’s still extremely weird to me that you called this better).

If you want to go after that kind of stuff, I would be with you. But calling everything predatory actually just makes it harder to talk about real problems. You are ruining this word.

“We” includes the guy saying “skins are fine,” in reply to the same comment.

Yes, optional skins are fine. I agree with that statement.

If I buy the game, right now, all of those characters are in the game… but I don’t get them. I can get my ass kicked by them. But I can’t select them.

This is a good thing, because it means that you can still remain compatible with any opponent even if you choose to stay on the base game. The alternative was the old model where you HAD to buy every upgrade from Street Fighter IV to Super Street Fighter IV to Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition to Ultra Street Fighter IV, or else you were left behind and could no longer play with the rest of the playerbase that moved on to the latest edition.

Would you rather have that be mandatory? Is that the model you want to go back to?