• GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the slope having already slipped.

    It’s not a fallacy to say that this is gameplay features for pay and I am only ok with cosmetics being for pay in a game that isn’t free at its base.

    I don’t want to let them move that goalpost.

    Also, not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

    While it is possible that a company like Capcom, driven to increase its profit margin, and having normalized pay-to-win-through-convenience-features in this game would choose to not do more pay-to-win options with deeper gameplay impacts in a future game.

    Being vocal about hating this game’s micro-transactions, especially with the reviews going so negative, is one of the only ways we can communicate that we don’t want either.

    • Ilflish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I never said all Slippery Slope are incorrect. I just think this isn’t one of them

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        In order for an argument to be a slippery slope argument it needs to require that step one leads to step two.

        My argument wasn’t even a slippery slope argument and is therefore not the slippery slope fallacy.

        My claim was that normalizing this type of pay-to-win-light game design makes it easier for them to normalize pay-to-win-full game design. It did not claim that normalizing this will lead to normalizing that.

        I don’t want either in my games.

        If we push back against this now it should make them think twice about considering full pay-to-win single player non-free games, because it could have a much bigger backlash. Which is what I was saying.