Hopefully these don't start getting used too frequently, as it kind of... defeats the purpose of federation. Would not want to have to make accounts on multiple instances just to participate in niche communities.
KoboldCoterie
joined 1 year ago
"Hey, can you recommend a good free photoshop alternative?"
"DIE!"
Just like the good old Jraphics Interchange Format!
Plus as an added bonus we can have the 'gif' pronunciation disagreement!
The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.
Heck, take these two screenshots as an example:
The first is XIII (Gamecube), the second is Metal of Honor: Rising Sun (PS2). Both were released in 2003. I'd definitely say XIII holds up better visually.
It’s either that or they eventually plan on charging PC players a monthly fee to play all their Sony games.
That would be hilarious, I'd love to see the backlash if they tried that.
Do it. If people want to pay high prices for brand new video games, let them pay it. I’ll just do what I’ve always done; wait for a sale.
If you think that's in favor of paying such prices, and defending the practice, I don't even know what to say.
I can't control what anyone else does, but I can control what I do, and I'm right there with the post I'm agreeing with: I'll wait for a sale, and if that sale never comes, I won't buy it. There's no disagreement or contradiction there.
Yes, because you know what? It is a solution, if everyone does it. If they started releasing games at $80, and everyone just said "Nope, sorry!" and refused to pay it, that practice would stop really fast. I have a huge game backlog, and there's tons of great indie games with $10-$25 price tags that won't be subject to this bullshit.
What's your plan to discourage this practice, complain about it on Lemmy and then buy the games anyway? I'm sure that'll be madly successful.
If that sale magnitude doesn’t happen, I won’t buy the game.
It's really not difficult. You don't have to buy the game. You can just choose not to play it.
There's a fundamental disconnect here and I'm not sure where it is, so let me just explain my position and maybe you can tell me where you're confused.
Let's take, for instance, a game which at full price is $40, a game that's $60, and a game that's $80.
In all of these cases, let's assume I have decided that I am willing to pay $20.
In the first case, I will wait for a 50% sale, and buy the game.
In the second case, I will wait for a 66% sale, and buy the game.
In the third case, I will wait for a 75% sale, and buy the game.
If that sale magnitude doesn't happen, I won't buy the game. Similarly, if I've lost interest in the game by the time that sale magnitude happens, I won't buy the game.
It's very simple. Nobody is forcing you to pay $80 for a game, and nobody is forcing you to buy it just because it's 50% off, if the 50% off price is not low enough that you feel it's worth your money to buy it. It's OK to just not ever buy a game.
I mean it's fine on paper. But like... imagine that a popular instance - lemmy.world, let's say - has a community that's very popular and, for whatever motivation, decides they want to push people to move to their instance (or at least create accounts there), so they change one or more of those popular communities to be local-only.
Best case, they fracture the community. Worse case, a very large number of users start making accounts there to use those communities, and abandon other instances. Worst case, they use the large influx of signups they get from such a move to promote themselves, grow even further, and eventually do something malicious.
We can already create private instances that don't federate for those niche communities; I don't really see what this feature is adding other than specifically having communities dedicated to that specific instance (With instance-specific information like donations, financials, outage notices, that sort of thing.)