Another article that highlighs inherent flaws in the American legal system. How can this potentially be an actual lawsuit? How can "journalists" even entertain reporting on this?

Honestly I'm just posting to laugh at my fellow lemmings responses and watch see how the plaintiff is roasted for not gitting gud.

But, there is a real conversation here around continued ignorance of game development and the value of difficult games as a value proposition. Afterall, the person attempting to sue from did choose to purchase the games willingly knowing they're not for scrub casuals like themselves.

What do you all think, is difficulty gating content a real issue? Should dev's have some kind of legal requirement to appease players that can spec a build properly? Is it Thursday and I'm just looking for some easy laughs at a morons expense?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Console_Modder@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Absolute maidenless behavior.

Seriously tho, it's really stupid. Not every game is meant to be enjoyed by every gamer, just like how not every book will not be enjoyed by every reader. If the devs are fine with excluding a potential group of audience members by making their game very difficult, then they should be allowed to do that. Unfortunately, I get that it sucks for the people that don't have the time or skills to 'git gud' at a game like Elden Ring and they may feel like they wasted their money on it. However, it's not like you can demand a refund at the movie theater because a movie you saw was confusing, not funny, or just not something you like.

This is definitely just my opinion, but to me it seems like Elden Ring and Dark Souls 3 were both popular enough that most people that play video games should know FromSoftware's reputation for making very difficult games. If you haven't played one of their games before, you should know that it's a gamble as to weather you can even finish the game. But, my view on this might be pretty skewed as most people I talk to play a lot of video games

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can't really find out of you'll get good enough to enjoy a soulslike without buying one and playing it for longer than the two hour refund period. For other products, you usually have something you can do about it or some way to try it first. You don't need to buy a kayak to find out you don't like kayaking as you can go for a kayaking lesson first and use the venue's equipment. It's understandable that people who hit a wall and can never get any enjoyment from a soulslike will be upset that it cost them just as much to find that out as it costs someone who'll compete the game and have a great time.

Maybe it's enough to just do the refund window based on progression rather than time.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

There's always the option to buy a cheaper game in the genre first, or to wait for a sale. You don't have to start with the newest biggest title.

I don't think that there's a realistic way to measure a fair amount of progression in every game, and it could be hard as a consumer to keep track of the limit. It could work if the minimum limit is 2 hours, and a maximum can be set by devs/publishers, but it seems unlikely many would go for that...