90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
90 points (93.3% liked)
PC Gaming
8534 readers
776 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Worse than what they've been doing for the last decade? It seems to me like this is a better state of things because it's clearly a lot of money for one big purchase, so you know immediately that it's not something you can afford. Better transparency, so less manipulative.
Clearly so it seems to you. There are companies that, more simply, don't do this at all: they don't need to be transparent on how dishonest they are... because they aren't.
If your argument "in secret they may be"... well, if your point is "entities that seems honest are the most secretly dishonest", I think the first entity that we can apply your logic is your very self: you pretend to be honest in defend companies who behave transparently dishonest... it simply mean that you're honesty is just a show off, while in truth you're just shilling.
That's your logic: next time behave openly dishonest, so we know how much transparently dishonest you are.
I think I'm missing an important part of your argument here. What are they doing that you consider to be dishonest?
F2P games target need big number of people, by necessity their biggest customer share is low-income people: proposing them luxury range product and peer-pressure ("to look good") is what I call dishonest.
Ah, I see. Though I would call this manipulative, not dishonest.
It's the converse. By definition, dishonest entities (that are good at what they do) will appear honest.
Definitions aside, let's go back to my original argument. To rephrase it a bit: A transparently manipulative entity is better than a deceptive and manipulative entity. So why protest the added transparency and not the manipulation?