- 0 Posts
- 33 Comments
Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That’s about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there’s no consistent way of defining what “being a dish” means without running into contradictions.
In fact General Tso’s is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso’s Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it’s invented there”, then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree “feels” wrong); but if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country”, then General Tso’s is Chinese, which, apparently not!
And that’s without even considering the question of how far “back” you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that’s historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?
I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.
“X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.
“_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _” does not imply “_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _”. That’s a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.
EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is “we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn’t work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we’d kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay”
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing
No, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make - “every example of X that has existed so far is Y” does not imply “by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y”.
You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can’t conclude “because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well”.
As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!
People complaining about a highly-upvoted post: we did it, Fediverse, we’re finally at feature-parity with Reddit!
1·1 year agoYou’re allowed to comment on posts on other servers. That’s, like, the entire point of the Fediverse.
If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.
Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?
If the point you’re actually trying to make is “if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it”, then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn’t justify the price of a full game. That’s my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn’t have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.
There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, and I’m tired of pretending that there is. If you think the base game is over-priced, then by all means complain about that - but if both the base game and the DLC are worth the price they’re asking for it, then there is no harm done (and some advantage) in having modular buying options.
Sure, because something so egregious would definitely show up in a Google search for “Zach Weinersmith sweatshop”, right?
Unless…you’re exaggerating on the Internet to stir up outrage?
They make smaller games, still charge full prices, then make DLCs that are relatively small and chare a lot for them.
So you agree with me, then, that the problem is publishers charging a disproportionate price for the amount of content being purchased?
Eh - I did, but other commenters pointed out that it’s not always possible to pass them depending on road conditions, so I’m with them.
My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn’t like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you’ve spent the price of the base game, but that’s effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.
What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they’re mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn’t commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is “worth” $60, and it’s split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn’t exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn’t mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.
Why is it a problem that you have to pass a slow-moving vehicle?
EDIT: this was a weird comment to get downvoted for. Not everyone drives, y’all - it was a genuine question, not one loaded with implication.
Because, as we all know, the only way of travelling across the ocean is by plane.
No-one’s claiming that it’s unreasonable or unprecedented for kids to be noisy and disruptive due to (among other reasons) still-developing brains that can’t fully process social norms and responsibilities.
We’re saying that, given that everyone knows that fact, the parents who choose to bring poorly-behaved kids onto planes are being selfish and irresponsible.
The kids are mostly blameless in these situations - they’re still developing, they can’t (depending on age) be expected to be fully responsible. It’s the parents that are selfish shitbags.
Irony, you say?