That statement doesn’t really make sense. Especially in this case, the website is a business and a store. A government definitely has the right to take legal action against a physical store operating within it’s jurisdiction, so why would the same not hold true for an electronic one?
I get what you are saying, and actually agree with out. But you don’t have to be an asshole about it. No one has the obligation to attend your tantrums.
Children make games on Roblox (real games, the thing people do working in the industry), Roblox makes money off those games and pays close to nothing to the children. Therefore, exploits children.
Sometimes, there are already resources explaining more clearly and thoroughly than we could. And although I’m unsure if this case qualifies, there are definitely topics that can’t be reduced to a few sentences. Thus, a reputable link is often worth more to both sides: it saves the explainer time and effort while informing the target far better.
If you don’t want to engage with the content, I believe there are better ways to go about it than being rude to people who were likely trying to help.
Kids make maps. Stuff in the maps is sold for Roblox bucks. Roblox bucks cost money to buy. The kid who makes the map gets the Roblox bucks, and can sell them. The problem is you only get 30% back when you sell a Roblox buck.
So kids spend time making big maps and servers, buying ads, getting shoutouts on YouTube/whatever, and Roblox takes a 70% cut from all of it
Is labor. There is a whole market of Roblox related things, there are job sites, freelance sites that employ kids to work on design/programming/marketing of these game modes. To pay them the game currency that maybe later can be traded for real money.
A normal business, yes. Normal businesses are highly and cruelly exploitative, which is why we decided 80 years ago (in the US) that children, at the very least, should be protected from them.
It’s bad and it’s kids. Like, the game is no better if you doin’t aim it at kids, but the fact they intentionally employ child labor as a gamified device is just disgusting.
It’s a game designed for kids with not enough moderation/limitations for a kids game. There’s literal porn games if you look in the right places (called ‘condo games’)
Yeah, the other problem with these kinds of open-ended social games that are heavily aimed at children is that adults who want to exploit children will play those games for that express purpose.
Same issue with games like VRChat, and to a less extent, Fortnite.
And I could say at least Kamala doesn’t have all her political opponents locked up. I wouldn’t do that though because boiling a politician down to a single issue doesn’t make any sense.
Maybe not to you, but when 15,000 children have been murdered and an entire population is starving, then boiling a politician down to a single issue does make sense to me.
I’m not apathetic, I’ve actively contacted my representatives demanding a cease fire. I’ve donated for aid for Gaza. Considering what Erdogan has done to the Kurds I find you argument extra rich. By all means continue to act all self righteous when I will be the one who has to deal with the other guy if you keep carrying water for his campaign.
Would you have an idea about what they would care about? Like are they just virtue signaling hard? Why not?
Like I could see Russians or Chinese or Republicans pushing this point just to sow division on the Israel point. But why “tankies”? Maybe I should just google it
people claiming to care about Palestinians but then encouraging votes against them. Voting any way but for Harris will harm them and that’s easy to reason through but they don’t care. Ergo they do not give an actual flying fuck about any Palestinian, they just want to be seen as doing so.
You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and this is a classic case. He’s an ethno-nationalist. Ask him how he feels about Kurdish minorities or the genocide of Armenians.
Important to remind everyone that a LOT of your negative memories and feelings surrounding OW1 and 6v6 were due to the migraine magnets called 2cp. Literally a stand in the choke for 9 years and see who correctly uses every Q under the sun correctly first.
The fundamental issue with this game is they made some classes absolutely stomp others in 1v1. If you want to make a game that can scale to different team sizes, every class should at least have a chance of beating any other.
What you are suggesting is the issue is what they have been trying to 'fix', but it goes completely against what Overwatch is and what made it great to begin with. It's not about 1v1s, it's a team game and they have attempted to devolve it into a 1v1 game where you just happen to have 4 other teammates.
A damage hero should absolutely win 1v1 vs a support hero everytime and it shouldn't even be close.
It's fine if you enjoy the solo play style more, but it's just not what Overwatch is about and why the majority of the original Overwatch playerbase quit.
Counterpoint, in TF2 teamwork is also very important, yet every class can quickly drop every other one. Even medic can drop a heavy in under 4 seconds of sustained fire.
This isn't TF2 though is it, the games were designed differently and achieved different things. If TF2 is the game you want, why not play that? Overwatch had it's own identity, one the devs have slowly stripped away.
This is interesting. I mean of course, I am aware of the reasons they did this massive change, and on paper they all made sense ahead of time.
They also massively degraded the game feel, and IMO were ultimately the wrong solution for the problem(s) they were facing. I understand why they did it, much like I understand why they chased the eSports-hype, but I disagree with all actions taken and their outcomes regardless.
The game had already mostly lost me by the time OW2 rolled around, and between the very intense-feeling 5v5 that was nothing like the chill chat-with-friends-while-playing-some-OW we had before and the rampant monetization, I just dropped off. I don’t think this will at all make me come back to the game, but on a conceptual level I really enjoy them at least experimenting with undoing a lot of the shit they did to the game over the years, this isn’t the only thing they’re reverting after all.
So why did they drop the team numbers from 6 to 5? Does it really make that much of a difference? Couldn’t they just have both modes available (like Halo has 16v16, 32v32 and such)?
It makes a massive difference, the game was balanced with 6v6 from the get go, removing a tank completely changes how the game works.
They had problems with certain tank combinations, but instead of addressing that directly, they just removed one. A lot of changes they made just felt like justifications to calling it a 'new game'.
The devs are too proud to add a 6v6 mode along side, it's took so much pressure for them to finally 'experiment' with 6v6, they just won't admit their modes, changes etc are failures.
It also essentially undermines the whole idea of the game. “More FPS focus” and “more focus on individual gameplay” are not why I enjoyed OW1 in the first place, after all. It was the game to play with real life friends while hanging out on voice chat and relaxing after work. The mix of high-precision, low-precision, no-precision, tanking, healing, everything meant that there was something for everybody and we could all easily play together and just spend an evening talking shit and doing shit.
They want everyone to feel powerful on every hero (to sell skins), but that's not Overwatch's identity. They took a lot of skill expression and teamplay out of the game.
I mean the devs are completely clueless anyway, they removed mccrees stun citing "too much CC in the game" while simultaneously adding more CC through both new heros and changing existing ones. Just reading their patch notes shows how lost they are.
Oh the grenade part was so silly. “Hey we are removing the stun, too much CC and let’s be honest, it makes it far too easy to blow up stunned flankers”.
…
“Here, as a replacement that’s a homing grenade that just straight up kills the flanker, no stunning necessary.”
It’s worth it to read the director’s take that goes with this announcement, it’s quite long but goes into great detail about the motivation and effects.
I hate the change, but I can totally understand why they did it. Much as I personally dislike it.
I stopped playing shortly after OW2 came out. They killed my favorite role (tank) by throwing one of the tanks away, making the tank role miserable to play since the team fights were always on my shoulders. Then, on top of that, they unbalanced everything even more, and had to update maps for 5v5, forever removing some of them from the game.
That was all after the slap in the face that was taking away a game I paid money for to replace it with a broken, microtransaction-ridden experience.
I might be willing to look past the microtransaction BS and play again if they bring 6v6 with some of the original, unmodified OW1 maps.
The biggest issue is that IMO, even nowadays balance isn’t remotely as good as it was before the change, owing to the massive imbalance on all ends the 5v5-switch introduced, and them only working through that at a glacial pace. But even more so, this is annoying because of how it essentially undermines the reason they did this.
Sure, the queue time argument still stands. Yeah. But on a balance level, “Double tanks were problematic for game balance” is a bit of a moot point in hindsight. Yeah, they were, sure. Less so than 5v5 is, it turns out.
dexerto.com
Najnowsze