Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
One day I will speak with someone on here who pays their own utilities and bills. That day is not today.did you miss ip's post or are you dismissing it because you assume he doesn't pay his own bills
honestly the worst feeling in the world is when you're drawing something you know you're bad at drawing and you have to keep staring at it while finishing it and you wanna puke because it's so badyou can also look at it this way: the only reason you're 'bad' at drawing it is because you don't know enough about how to do it, and when you've finished drawing, you'll be a better artist for giving yourself that new information
the market has not really changed imo. i guess more people would be buying video games because of the "video games are for nerds" thing existed, but that's about it. i can't really see what has evolved.the costs of making a AAA game have increased (or studios are more willing to spend more money), the costs of marketing and what devs are willing to spend on marketing has risen, and i imagine AAA studios are typically working on multiple titles at the same time to keep up with the market. lots of games are also now being developed with long-term plans of continuous development, which was less common in the past
in the 90's, developers would buy/license advanced programs for animating, programming, or whatever. in 2017, developers are still licensing and buying advanced programs for animating, programming, or whatever. i can't honestly see what's changed here other than inflation.
so why did games do just fine with a $60 price tag and no DLC?the games market is always changing. as people look for bigger and better games, studios are gonna need more and more money. AAA studios need to profit enough on their releases to make their next game, and then the game after that. the way we obtain content and the way we interact with it is also changing all the time. you can't honestly compare the games market ten or even five years ago to the market today because this is an industry that evolves and changes fast. the real-world economy is also a tough thing to keep up with, and games are already expensive as is. devs know that people won't respond well to a price hike
bad MTX are buffs and items that you could get in the game but takes ridiculous amounts of griding-- this is what stuffty people do. why wait another day for another life in candy crush while a simple click of a button will get you more? it's proven that money means less when you buy it with a card rather than cash. it's exploiting human psyche imo.i'm with you on this; there are definitely schemes like this that are exploitative and in those cases the microtransactions specifically are the issue
royalties aren't paid to developers from MTX/DLC btw, it's a one time deal most of the time. $60 for a full game is way more than plenty; within the 3 days of its release, cod:ww2 sold over $500 million copies. most AAA games sell well over the budget. the developer's salaries are pre-determined by a contract too.what's your standard for proper use? games like maplestory have had microtransactions for ages far before it was ever controversial. lots of MMOs have similar monetization schemes where players can pay for cosmetics or special pets/mounts and the sort. i guess it's also worth asking what your standard for improper use is if that's easier to answer; certain implementations of microtransactions in mobile markets especially can tend to be exploitative, for instance, and that'd be understandable
i like DLC, but i don't like microtransactions. i haven't found a game yet that uses it "correctly"
ill spare you as long as you promise me to learn how to draw girls that dont look like blob peopledo u have any critique/advice for them? just sayin stuff like this isn't incredibly helpful and it discourages people instead of providing them with information that can actually make them a better artist
Better idea: nationalize the internet and make it a public utilitythe DOE would probably end up having some kind of control through grants in aid but it'd make more sense to have it implemented on a municipal level (with mostly state oversight)
considering that they didn't try selling the web in packages before the rules were passed, the only reason I could possibly see them doing it now is that pro-NN alarmists freaking out about how they would do something like that indirectly gave them the idea in doing sothey did/are. not in the sense that you might be thinking, but mobile carriers especially have played around with ideas where you pay some amount each month to remove certain sites from your data cap or allow access to certain sites
aka it's your guys' fault
don't let flatflyer draw her i already have him on my hitlist for making furry research of sonokido's characters
he also cant rly dra.
i guess pre-2015 the internet was an anti freedom stuffhole then?yeah it was (forgive the source, it's the only one i could find with sourced recounts of all the past offenders)
