Lurker > Darmik

Microtransaction and in-game currency are not used interchangeably and they do not mean the same thing. And no I don't consider buying $60 worth of in-game currency a microtransaction.

Google microtransaction definition and paste all of the results here. This is looney even for you.

Here's the quote from Rare

"Our focus at launch [is] on a great game experience. When we deliver this first major update, that's when we'll turn on the ability for players to spend money optionally.

"We thought long and hard about what's right for our game experience, and the key thing we think is that it has to add to the fun, social nature of the game. So anything in this area will not impact power or progression, and you'll always know what you're getting - so that means no loot crates."

The first paid content for the game will come in the form of pets. "It'll either be on a shoulder, like a monkey, or like a cat on the ship", explains Neate. "But it'll kind of benefit everyone socially and emotionally. So if I've got a cat, I can pick up it up and look at it, or you can pick it up and run off with it. Obviously when you put it down it'll come back.

Beyond that, Rare's looking to include potions that can alter you cosmetically - like a draught that turns your character model old for a certain amount of time. The mission statement is that microtransaction items have "emotional value, not mechanical value."

Here's Capcom

"We do have some paid content planned for purely cosmetic stuff. Stuff that doesn't affect your strength your abilities anything about the game. purely cosmetic stuff.they go into a little more detail. they say well maybe the handler. maybe there's gonna like going to be like some outfits for her that if people really want it they could pay some money."

So different!
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

CarlGrimes posted...

Darmik posted...

People have constantly argued here that death threats on the internet shouldn't be taken seriously.

And? The FBI is not CE. They had a job to do and dropped the ball, and now 17 people are dead.

So internet death threats should be taken seriously? When should we as CE users report people to the FBI?

I'm not sure if the FBI has enough resources to investigate every teenager who threatens to shoot people on the internet.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

So in summary you're outraged over microtransactions that don't exist in Sea of Thieves.

Because in ZombiePelican world a microtransaction is buying in-game currency and nothing else. A $2 gesture DLC isn't a microtransaction.

So if Rare lives up to what they're saying there'd be no problem and it would be like Monster Hunter World and won't have microtransactions?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

There has been a push back against the junk food companies here in Australia. Most of the focus is trying to stop bad habits from forming in children (like banning junk food advertisements that focus on kids) but there is an effort in trying to combat it. I know Michelle Obama tried to make healthy food a thing in school lunches too right?

So people are doing stuff about it. Probably not enough but the only real way is to push it far is to target the companies pushing out the junk food with regulations and higher taxes. I'm not sure if people really would be happy with that either.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

MrPeppers posted...

I dont know if we can confidently say that about cosmetics since the ease with which things can be patched at a later date, plus the fiscal incentive to add it in later is so hugely confounding that theres not much of a real way to prove it one way or the other.

The cosmetics are being developed with the other stuff post launch.

They don't want to charge for the new quests, islands, higher gear/weapons/ships etc. because that would punish the players who stick with the base game and would fratcuree the userbase. So they're going to charge for certain cosmetics that have no gameplay benefit. I don't know a better monetization model they can use for this kind of game.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

CarlGrimes posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

What can they do without crossing the boundary of thought police?

It is called investigation.

And how do they 'investigate'

itachi15243 posted...

He was reported for a YouTube comment saying the he was going to shoot up a school. That's not a f***ing irrational hatred someone had for him. He said he was going to do it and he did. All while the FBI stood idly by doing nothing

People have constantly argued here that death threats on the internet shouldn't be taken seriously.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

prettyprincess posted...

MrPeppers posted...

All of this shit used to be in the base game or as unlockables

this isn't true
a lot of dlc now (especially bonus cosmetics or multiplayer maps) is stuff that would never have been added to older games due to time constraints and lack of updatability

Also there isn't any cosmetic DLC until 3 months after it launches. So all of this stuff is literally developed after launch.

I don't think anyone would claim Sea of Thieves feels like an incomplete game because you can't get a cat for your ship.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

What do people want authorities to do? Search his internet history? Bug him?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

So now people want the authorities to investigate death threats made on the internet? Interesting.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

You are seriously wondering why people dying from an unhealthy lifestyle doesn't get the same response as a group of people killed randomly by a psychopath?

I mean they seem to be in very different categories. Are you gonna suggest they tear down the 9/11 memorial to build a heart attack memorial too?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Don't think it makes much difference for the incels considering they're incels
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Romulox28 posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

Romulox28 posted...

there's no benefit to the consumer other than a promise that if you pay $10 for a different colored hat, the devs will be able to continue supporting your game and not shut off the servers after a year or something.

"there's no benefit except continued support of the game"

as a consumer, how a company manages its product is not my problem, it's theirs, and frankly to put the future of a game hostage contingent on SOMEONE spending thousands upon thousands on little in-game trinkets is a pretty shitty business practice no matter how you slice it

Holding the game hostage? What? Games didn't used to get supported for years unless they were an MMO. Which had a monthly subscription.

This game is basically an MMO lite.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

I'm talking about conservative blow-hards on Twitter and social media who yell at anyone who opposes them "come on my show and debate me!"

It's not about having a proper discourse. It's about getting content for their shitty YouTube accounts so they can be seen as yelling down at someone in front of their fanbase.

And no I'm not saying all conservatives do this.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

What's so hard to comprehend?

That Sea of Thieves is selling cosmetic DLC ala carte as its microtransaction model? The entire basis for Jim Sterling's video?

Like your position here doesn't even match what he said in the video.

ZombiePelican posted...

Because it was designed to be a fun game and not a cynical cash vacuum like Sea of Thieves will obviously be knowing their publisher

So Capcom deserves the benefit of the doubt now?

ZombiePelican posted...

If MHW has microtransactions, where the BS premium currency you can buy with real money?

What's the BS currency in Sea of Thieves?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

No, That's the definition you just came up with to try and desperately reach to save your sinking ship of an argument

I quoted Wikipedia

ZombiePelican posted...

Holy s***, no they don't. MHW has cosmetic DLC while Sea of Thieves has microtransactions.

What the fuck?

ZombiePelican posted...

Because developers and publishers have never lied through their teeth straight to our faces before, nope absolutely never

Why does Monster Hunter World get the benefit of the doubt though?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

Again, the point of microtransactions is there's no upper limit to what you can spend,but there is a finite amount that can be spent on DLC because It's not a reoccurring charge like a microtransaction

Just letting you know doubling down when you're losing is a terrible strategy

That's not what a microtransaction needs to be. It's a small (micro) transaction. This is the definition everyone uses.

Monster Hunter World and Sea of Thieves literally use the same model so far.

ZombiePelican posted...

Are you really asking for a source to confirm there will be no upper limit to how much I can spend on Sea of Thieves' microtransactions?

Yes. Because what they have said state the opposite. Going by your definition of microtransactions Sea of Thieves doesn't have any.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

No, a microtransaction is an industry term for a small purchase to bypass grind

Microtransaction (sometimes abbreviated as MTX) is a business model where users can purchase virtual goods via micropayments.

ZombiePelican posted...

One was actually designed to be a fun game and not a "live service" cynically designed to suck as much cash out of my wallet as posisble.

There's a finite amount I can spend on MHW's DLC and there's literally no limit to how much I can spend on Sea of Thieves' microtransactions

Where's your source?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

Darmik posted...

How is $2 gesture DLC not a microtransaction.

Because DLC and microtransactions are two different things and you know this and are restoring to mental gymnastics when cornered, just because the price of the DLC is small that doesn't make it a microtransaction especially considering they can't be earned through grinding or paying for them with premium currency that Sea of Thieves WILL have

A microtransaction... Is a microtransaction. That's it.

Explain why Monster Hunter World is good and Sea of Thieves is bad. From what I can tell they both offer cosmetic DLC for purchase. The biggest difference is Sea Of Thieves isn't doing it until the first content update.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

They've said that fancy gear is still attainable in-game. They're not gonna have 3 months of jack shit.

And they've been open about the fact that you're not realistically going to get what you actually want unless you pay for it. Locking content behind the choice of extreme grinding or a paywall isn't actual "player choice"

Then I'm not sure how you've handled any sort of dlc in the last 15 years.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

DLC =/= Microtransactions

This is reaching pretty hard

How is $2 gesture DLC not a microtransaction.

Frolex posted...

You can choose what you want to buy paying an exorbitant mark up and buying a la carte. Character and ship customization are touted to be a huge portion of the game and your interaction. If I were the kind of person who were interested in shutting myself off from a major gameplay feature, maybe the value proposition of microtransactions would be a minor improvement over more robust content updates. But as a whole, just throwing microtransactions into the old $60 model isn't actually giving players more milage out of their money.

They've said that fancy gear is still attainable in-game. They're not gonna have 3 months of jack shit.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ZombiePelican posted...

Monster Hunter World has no microtransactions, you worthless corporate mouthpiece

I would have done an account bet over it but we all know how that would go.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

But it has significantly less of an impact than paid expansion packs. Which is how games used to be funded after launch.

And also offers significantly less value to the consumer as a product, and usually at a higher price.

Why? You can choose what you want to buy.

In the old system you'd need to spend a chunk to get all of the pets, all of the new islands, all of the new clothes and if you didn't buy it you would experience none of it at all. They'd likely need to split the userbase and the worlds.

In this one you can spend money to get things you specifically want. If you want just a monkey and not the cat go for it. But because islands and quests are free you aren't split from your friends if you don't want to pay for anything.

Do you seriously think the first system is automatically better solely because of microtransactions? Imagine sailing with your friends to a new island and suddenly half your crew disappear because they didn't buy the new expansion.

And if you hated DLC that much you could simply play it for the first three month where there isn't any.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

And they're all part of the game, and they all have an impact on the player experience, especially in a multiplayer game where socializing with other players is meant to be an import part of the gameplay.

But it has significantly less of an impact than paid expansion packs. Which is how games used to be funded after launch.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

seems like he's being pretty specific to this game in the interview

I'm referring to the hours comment. You don't need to spend hours constantly opening lootboxes to get what you want because you can just buy it.

That would apply to both microtransactions and buying with in-game currency.

Frolex posted...

Things that don't "shift the scale" in terms of stats or w/e are still part of the game experience. It's why the "just cosmetic" excuse is bulls***. Things like having a soundtrack or a character creator are "just cosmetic" but they're still a part of the player experience.

Neither of those things are locked behind DLC.

I don't see how a pet animal released months after launch is as central as a character creator or soundtrack. it's a cute bonus at best. Something that probably is worth 5 bucks or whatever if you wanted to pay for it. It's not something they've marketed the game with either. It's marketed as their first paid DLC.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

- The Lion King windows game is a major event for Microsoft. Not in a good way. But it eventually leads to the necessity to create Directx
- Lion King was shipped out preinstalled on brand new Presario computers. One million of them. These computers had new video cards and drivers installed which had never been WinG tested. Literally no testing. Nobody even tested Lion King even though it was preinstalled. Turns out if you launched the game it would blue screen the computer
- This was a Christmas launch! Disney, Microsoft and Compaq ruined Christmas for many, many children
- This was early on in Microsoft's push into gaming. They were gaining momentum. They had Disney support! Not to mention Windows 95 is around the corner. This shook them to the core. Remember that Microsoft were convincing developers to use WinG in the first place.
- There was a lot of yelling, screaming and legal threats from Disney. The issue couldn't be put on one person so no one was fired
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

- The Microsoft games division were looking into making sports games (including women's soccer). They were expected to rival Madden. The developers said they'd need to release their games on platforms like PlayStation to achieve that. Microsoft said no.
- Fun was a new concept in Microsoft at this point. Programmers didn't need to worry about Word being fun. Creating new games was a challenge
- Microsoft bought the flight simulator developers because Sierra was attempting to buy them
- A lot of thr flight sim developers are still at Microsoft and now work on the Forza series
- The Microsoft games team worked on small little games for the entertainment packs. One of the top guys left to work with Ensemble. Who end up making Age of Empires
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

I'm just going off their claim that you would have buy a specific item to get what you want rather than in their words playing for "60,000 hours".

Pretty sure he's referring to taking your chances with lootboxes.

Frolex posted...

And ultimately, everyone whos playing is going to be locked out of those parts of the game's experience if they aren't paying on top of the entry price. Even at best, it would mean they're charging for content they know isn't actually worth buying

No. It means they're charging for content that doesn't shift the scales unfairly or ruin the experience for people who don't want to pay.

If people want some cute cat on their ship I'm sure they'll find value in it.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Not really. The game was built for the Wii U, but delayed and ported for the Switch launch.

Which is likely what happened to Persona 5 as well. They weren't gonna release the PS3 version without the PS4 one.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

It's a free to play game because it's forcing players to pay money to skip a massive grind. It's certianly not designed that because it's the way players want to unlock items

What massive grind are you talking about? Where has this been said? I don't think you get any pets if you don't pay for them.

Frolex posted...

You should give a s*** about the content they're adding if you're saying they are justified in charging for it. If not then yes, I agree with your earlier point, charging $30 for a chintzy pets expansion is the opposite of pro-consumer

I am giving a shit about that.

Rare are saying that they're going to constantly add new worlds, quests, whatever and only charge for cosmetics and fluff like pets and potions that make you look old.

I would only pay for worlds and quests. That's what I used to pay for. That's the only DLC I still pay for. If I get that stuff for free because people want to shoot their pet cat out of a cannon that works out better for me.

It's funny because as much as people whine about this stuff I have never spent less on video games when it comes to hours played. I remember when I was expected to pay $20 for a bunch of multiplayer map packs only 20% of the userbase would even play.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

untrustful posted...

It's funny because he doesn't harp on the issue of cosmetic monetization for Warframe, but he does for sea of thieves.

To be fair in that case that game is F2P so that does match his logic.

Here he is praising Monster Hunter World for doing the exact same thing as Sea of Thieves though


---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Baldurs Gate 2 got an expansion pack 9 months after it launched...
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

They're making an obscene amount of money and it's reached saturation to the point that it's coming under player scrutiny and attracting the attention of the government. Which is why they're trying to shift to their next cash cow

That's lootboxes. Sea of Thieves doesn't have lootboxes.

And shifting to their next cow isn't a crash lol. It's adapting to the market demands. If gamers don't like Games as a Service they'll move onto other stuff. Instead the opposite is happing and GaaS keeps increasing every year.

Frolex posted...

But it's not just those two games or companies.Nearly every major (and even some minor) publisher has been engaged in a race to the bottom to provide the least amount of content that consumers will pay 60 dollars for. Street fighter 5 launched as a shell of a game. Blazblue has locked half its roster behind a paywall. The Division was rushed out as a buggy unfinished mess. And it's all being used to justify monetization schemes because hey, they're providing more content than they did at launch, right?

And I didn't buy or play any of those games

Frolex posted...

So you're saying that microsoft, the publisher that removed basic race options from Forza 7 and locked them behind lootboxes, deserves the benefit of the doubt in saying that they're going to do right by consumers in their new game?

I don't think they'd outright lie about a game releasing in two months no.

Frolex posted...

Then they could launch the game as a free to play title three months from now.

Why? Because you personally don't like it?

How many games do you even buy these days if you're this extreme about it? At this rate you'd need to be opposed to any paid content released for a $60 game.

Frolex posted...

Before a few years ago, releasing free content for a game was certainly more standard practice than slapping a $60 price tag on a free to play game.

Claiming that Sea of Thieves is a free to play game because it has cosmetic DLC is ridiculous dude. You'd probably piss your pants if you saw how mobile users monetize their userbase.

Frolex posted...

Paying for a robust game expansion or sequel is certainly a better value proposition for consumers than paying $60 for one game and then paying continuous fees on top of that to access whatever modicum of content they eek out over the course of a year.

What continuous fees? Why would you personally need to continuously buy cosmetics to access content?

Frolex posted...

And can we dispense with the the nonsense about how "microtransactions are free as long as you don't buy them!" even this game's dev team have been uncharacteristically honest about having to pay money to get what you want rather than being disingenuous with the claim the technically the content is free because you can grind an exorbitant amount of hours to maybe have a chance to get an item. Having to put up with that bulls*** is the price "free" players are paying

What bullshit?

Am I really expected to give a shit that I don't get to have a cat on my pirate ship for free when it's added to the game months after launch? Does that seriously bother you down to your core?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Why would you buy an overpriced skin on Counter-Strike though.

If some idiot spending $20 on a unicorn helmet means I don't need to pay for any DLC that's a net benefit for me.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

TheCurseX2 posted...

Explain why a game like Diablo 3 has had numerous free additions supported for the past 7 years and only had one expansion and DLC class throughout?

And an auction house
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

I agree with the posts in this topic about Future being better.

It was hard playing JSR after JSRF.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Either the bubble is about to burse and everyone is going to go bankrupt or they're making an obscene amount of money they should be giving more shit out without people playing money. It can't be both.

Yes Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are shitty. This is probably why they're selling less than their predecessors. But just because these two companies are shitty every single other one is?

Nobody was saying $50 games were a rip-off when EA and Activision pumped out licensed games that often were broken and barely finished. Every single model in gaming can be used and abused. But that doesn't mean every single one is bad.

Left 4 Dead 2 is a perfect example of this. Straight away gamers frothed at the mouth because they were expected to pay for a new game instead of some cheaper DLC. They expected a quick buck sequel. Why wouldn't they? Ubisoft and EA were doing this same exact thing!

Games as a Service is the exact same thing. If the game does it well then it's a great model. If it doesn't then it sucks and so does the game. Just like always.

The argument "Sea of Thieves should be free because it has microtransactions" doesn't hold up if you know a single thing about how they're handling it. You expect gamers to play the game absolutely free for 3 months before they roll out paid content? Nonsense.

Getting additional content for free months after launch has never been the standard. Buying some $30 Pets Expansion three months after launch doesn't magically become more pro-consumer because it's not a microtransaction. Buying Sea of Thieves 2 in 2019 isn't somehow more pro-consumer too. Expecting Rare to produce constant, additional content for free years after launch is not a reasonable expectation. It has never been the standard. Even in L4D2's case those expansions were released well after launch and were spread apart. Sea of Thieves is a live game that will get new shit every month. If you don't buy the microtransactions you get it for free because other people are paying for them.

If the model isn't intrusive and you get great content for your money there is 0% wrong with this monetization model. From Rare's comments about the game it very much looks like they're trying to avoid the loudest complaints people make about GaaS. Which is lootbox content, day one DLC and having progression tied to purchases.

voldothegr8 posted...

It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction.

Considering there's no lootboxes in this game there's nothing to go after.

If you love one cosmetic suit you'd never need to buy anything else. You don't have to keep buying lootboxes within a limited time period in the hopes you draw what you want.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Why do these conservative blow hards always challenge people to a debate.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

008Zulu posted...

Graphically it's not impressive. It doesn't even have anti-aliasing. How did it get a perfe... oh, Nintendo.

It's Platinum. Nier Automata also got good reviews.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

"Our focus at launch [is] on a great game experience. When we deliver this first major update, that's when we'll turn on the ability for players to spend money optionally.

"We thought long and hard about what's right for our game experience, and the key thing we think is that it has to add to the fun, social nature of the game. So anything in this area will not impact power or progression, and you'll always know what you're getting - so that means no loot crates."

The first paid content for the game will come in the form of pets. "It'll either be on a shoulder, like a monkey, or like a cat on the ship", explains Neate. "But it'll kind of benefit everyone socially and emotionally. So if I've got a cat, I can pick up it up and look at it, or you can pick it up and run off with it. Obviously when you put it down it'll come back.

"I really, really want to allow us to fire cats and other animals out of cannons. It'll land on its feet, it's a cat, it'll be fine!"

Beyond that, Rare's looking to include potions that can alter you cosmetically - like a draught that turns your character model old for a certain amount of time. The mission statement is that microtransaction items have "emotional value, not mechanical value."

As for why the game has microtransactions at all, Neate puts it down to the increased costs of running a game that will continuously add content beyond launch:

"It's always an interesting topic, but ultimately I have to look at the reality of running a game-as-service as a business. My goal and everyone else's goal here is to have as many people as possible working on this, and just keep giving people reasons to return, reasons to have fun. We have to run that like a business, you need revenue coming in."

So just to summarize here;
- No DLC at launch. The first paid content update will focus on pets and will release later
- No loot boxes. If you want something you can get that one thing specifically
- The features for stuff like pets aren't even fleshed out or finalized yet. But they promise it won't be tied to progression
- Every other content update is completely free. Stuff tied to gameplay mechanics, quests, etc. will not be paid content

What do people expect from a game like this? How would they handle a game like Sea of Thieves? Why is any of that stuff anti-consumer?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Frolex posted...

and people have been "waiting" for bitcoin to crash for just as long

What kind of argument is this?

Frolex posted...

almost as if providing post release support for a title can be a major driver for new purchases, crazy

Yes. But they can't rely on making DLC so more people buy a game can they? Especially since used games and price drops are a thing.

Frolex posted...

"Companies are not a charity" has never been an argument for anti-consumer practices, no matter how many people like to believe it is.

'Microtransactions are anti-consumer just because' isn't an argument for them being anti-consumer either

As for the list;
Left 4 Dead 2 charged the DLC for consoles. It is the closest example but funnily enough I noticed this on the wiki page.

The weekend following the game's announcement at the 2009 E3 Convention, some Left 4 Dead players called for a boycott of Left 4 Dead 2 and formed the Steam community group called "L4D2 Boycott (NO-L4D2)" which grew to over 10,000 members by the end of that weekend,[152] and reached more than 37,000 about a month later.[153][154] In addition to a lack of further Left 4 Dead content, they were concerned with the characters, visuals, and music shown in the E3 demonstration video, feeling these were inappropriate to the first game's aesthetics, and that the release of the sequel so soon after the first game would fracture the community.

In response to these complaints, Valve marketer Doug Lombardi stated that the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2 at E3 should not be taken to indicate that Valve would no longer support the first game. He asked the community to "trust [them] a little bit," and told them that while their team was eager to get new material to players of Left 4 Dead, they determined that a sequel would be the best option for several reasons: the demand for new campaigns, enemies and weapons could not be met as a simple DLC; both Faliszek and project lead Tom Leonard found that too much of the content relied on each other, making it very difficult to release incremental patches in the same style as Team Fortress 2;the development team liked the idea of rolling up the content into a sequel to be released a year after Left 4 Dead's release.

Left 4 Dead 2 being a new game release was a controversial thing to begin with.

I'm not familiar with GT6

Splatoon is not a genuine example. They specifically launch that game with less content. The first 3 months or so of the game are just unlocking content already on the disc. Then they add DLC until the first year is up. Then it's Splatfests for another year and that's it. ARMS did the same thing. I'm pretty sure AC also does something similar. It's timing and spreading the content out over a year to keep players engaged. Nintendo also don't drop the prices on their games as well.

The games on the other list aren't AAA titles. Don't they also use lootboxes?

Frolex posted...

But locking away content players already paid $60 for behind additional paywalls is inexcusable

They haven't paid for the Sea of Thieves content though. It's all post-release.

You pay for the complete game on release along with any future gameplay content. But you consider that a rip-off because you have to buy certain parrots or fancy hats?
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

dave_is_slick posted...

Darmik posted...

The mother has apparently been raped earlier in her life and seems desperate for food and clothes. I'm guessing she was pretty vulnerable to some dark shit.

All the more reason to not let her daughter go with some stranger.

I mean more that she's easily manipulated and used. It wouldn't surprise me if she has some sort of mental development issue.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

The mother has apparently been raped earlier in her life and seems desperate for food and clothes. I'm guessing she was pretty vulnerable to some dark shit.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

r4X0r posted...

Just put a cop in the school. Job done.

The School Liaison Officer was in the gym with third and fourth graders where he was sitting on a bench. According to a release, a third grader sitting next to the officer "reached over and placed his finger into the officers gun holster and pressed the trigger of the officers gun causing it to discharge through the bottom of the holster."

The bullet struck the floor and no one was injured. The officer was unaware of the child touching his gun until the weapon discharged.

According to the release, "the holster was a department approved level 3 security holster, with trigger guard, that typically cannot be touched or fired in the holster, but the childs small finger was able to reach inside."

http://www.fox9.com/news/maplewood-pd-child-reaches-through-officers-gun-holster-pulls-trigger
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

Sativa_Rose posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Not only that, no other nation on Earth has this same mass shooting problem.

Yet we're not allowed to talk about guns in the US for some reason....

Other countries do have guns though, not as many as the US but still enough so you'd figure there would be more.

I think a lot of it is the gun culture just isn't there in other countries compared to the US.

Nobody else really treats them the same way. To a lot of Americans guns are a part of their identity.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/graphic-pictures-and-details-of-eightyearolds-murder-elicit-tears-from-jury-and-medical-examiner/news- story/bf180bbe79598c3a35c61a0e5c951265

BEFORE a jury found Donald Smith guilty of the first degree murder of Cherish Perrywinkle, the man dubbed the Walmart Monster made a creepy request.

It took a jury just 14 minutes to find Smith guilty, after enduring countless graphic images of the 8-year-old victims battered body, often leaving them in tears.

He hid her, he gagged her, and he had his way with her, prosecutor Mark Caliel said in closing statements.

You could tell through the damage in her eyes that she fought until the last breath left her body.

Smith was found guilty on all counts; first degree murder, kidnapping and sexual battery.

But in a creepy twist, the accused asked his lawyer if he was allowed to turn around for a photo after court ended for the day.

Smith now faces the death penalty after he lured the little girl to her death in an American shopping centre.

Donald Smith didnt even put up a defense, but refused to plead guilty, and spare everyone the horrifying details, Investigative reporter Paige Kelton tweeted.

Earlier, a medical examiner who performed the autopsy on the little girl broke down as she gave evidence over the injuries sustained to the little girl.

The jury in the same Florida court were also in tears and covered their mouths when graphic photos of Cherish were shown in court.

She had so much trauma ... the anatomy was totally distorted by the injury she suffered, forensic pathologist and Jacksonville chief medical examiner Dr Valerie Rao said as jurors covered and closed their eyes.

Im sorry, I need to take a break. I need just 5 minutes.

Meanwhile, Smith decided to turn his back when autopsy pictures were shown, according to sources in court.

The surveillance video shows Mr Smith walking alongside the little girl. He allegedly lured both mother and daughter by offering to buy them new clothes. Cherishs mother later told police she was struggling to buy clothes for her daughters when Mr Smith overheard and offered to buy them for her

Hours later, at 11.18pm that evening, the girls mother Rayne called 911 desperately looking for the child, whom she says was last seen in the company of Mr Smith.

The last of the footage shows the little girl being led across the stores car park.

She died after she sustained tremendous force on her neck such that she could not breathe, Dr Rao told the court.

In a desperate call to police, the girls mother revealed how she fears the worst has happened to her daughter.

Ms Perrywinkle can be heard saying: Im hoping hes not raping her right now because Ive had that done to me and its not fun.

Fucking hell this world is shit
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik

P4wn4g3 posted...

Hopefully they port Pikmin 3. That was the only other Wii I game I wanted to play.

A Pikmin Trilogy would be awesome.

They ported Pikmin 1 and 2 to Wii so I'd say it's probable. Miyamoto loves Pikmin.
---

Kind Regards,
Darmik