Does TFP like to create S-storms?

[Rotor]

The Bandits have to have a an outfit?

[Krougal]

16 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

You can keep the attempted personal insults, of course. I say, attempted, because they failed.  

What attempted personal insults? There were none intended. If you took something personal, that is on you.

I thought we were having a friendly discussion here.

[InfiniteWarrior]

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

Cosmetic mini-DLCs are a practice that anyone from smallest indie developer to AAA does nowadays, generally the "front" of acceptable behaviour for games companies

That's why I call into question the definition of "DLC". The idea that's been normalized among the public is that anything that has to be downloaded (and that's everything now) is "DLC." Downloadable content actually used to indicate substantive content, e.g. an expansion, sold for a fair and reasonable price. Now, it's just about any little old thing sold even for the price of complete games. I wouldn't expect a turn in public sentiment about video game "cosmetics" anytime soon myself. An awful lot of people actually use video games to try and escape from the horrors of the real world.

[thatguybeard]

I’m okay with paid DLC, hopefully y’all are okay with a console player’s input, and if they offer a more things to build with DLC I’m definitely buying. For multiple reasons I love this game, I love to build, and it seems like from watching this game grow they’ve taken most of the money they’ve made and put it back into the game rather than pad bank accounts. No reason to think they wouldn’t do that with DLC money put it towards this game or 7 Days to Die 2. I’d be fine supporting that.

[Scyris]

17 hours ago, Roland said:

Why are you so bad at predicting supposed s-storms? I’m sure the reaction to outfit DLCs will be similar to the tempests in a tea kettle of “1.0” and “$44.99”. Even the s-storms of “lbd no more” and “empty jars bye bye” and “learn by reading” were just s-drizzles in the overall perception of the game. 
 

Will there be negative posts about the outfit DLC when it comes? Undoubtedly. All the people who don’t care will come to rage about it just like all the people who already owned the game came to rage about the price increase but it will be a drop in the overall bucket of players who will happily pay for the new outfits and make it a great success. A success storm. 
 

The people who will be the most angry are the PvPers who will call it a pay to win DLC but for the rest of the player base who play solo or cooperatively they’ll get it if they want it or ignore it as it won’t really matter how they compare with other players. 

 

I mean I don't care if they add outfit dlcs, as long as it doesn't add stats and such, or effect the gameplay I can safely ignore it and not buy it. Does seem kinda shady how they removed the clothes system from a21.2 but now are going to add this. Now we kinda see why they removed it. Anyway, as long as the outfits has no stats, or any gameplay advantage I really don't care if they add them, If you don't like it just don't buy it, its that simple, and if it doesn't effect gameplay or char ability in anyway you can just ignore it. If they do add a special slot for it, you can expect modders to make free outfits that prob look far better anyway.

[Roland]

As long as the content is purchased from the Steam store while not playing the game I’m fine with it. I don’t like when things are sold in game. If the new outfits are shown in the trader inventories but greyed out since I haven’t purchased them, that will upset me. But if they simply don’t exist in the game until I buy them on the Steam store and install them then I don’t see anything wrong with it. The base game comes with a nice variety of outfits as is. 

[Scyris]

1 hour ago, thatguybeard said:

I’m okay with paid DLC, hopefully y’all are okay with a console player’s input, and if they offer a more things to build with DLC I’m definitely buying. For multiple reasons I love this game, I love to build, and it seems like from watching this game grow they’ve taken most of the money they’ve made and put it back into the game rather than pad bank accounts. No reason to think they wouldn’t do that with DLC money put it towards this game or 7 Days to Die 2. I’d be fine supporting that.

 

If they add stuff that directly affects gameplay thats WHEN I have problem with dlc's. if its just block shapes i'll prob not care but if its stuff like a better cement mixer or something if you pay up yeah, thats a no go imo.

[Roland]

1 minute ago, Scyris said:

 

I mean I don't care if they add outfit dlcs, as long as it doesn't add stats and such, or effect the gameplay I can safely ignore it and not buy it. Does seem kinda shady how they removed the clothes system from a21.2 but now are going to add this. Now we kinda see why they removed it. Anyway, as long as the outfits has no stats, or any gameplay advantage I really don't care if they add them, If you don't like it just don't buy it, its that simple, and if it doesn't effect gameplay or char ability in anyway you can just ignore it. If they do add a special slot for it, you can expect modders to make free outfits that prob look far better anyway.

The new outfits are almost certain to have their own piece and set bonuses. I highly doubt they will just be cosmetic skins for existing outfits but I could be wrong. 
 

I can say that if they are simply visual alternatives I won’t buy them but if they are fully functioning outfits with bonuses I will. 

[Scyris]

3 minutes ago, Roland said:

The new outfits are almost certain to have their own piece and set bonuses. I highly doubt they will just be cosmetic skins for existing outfits but I could be wrong. 
 

I can say that if they are simply visual alternatives I won’t buy them but if they are fully functioning outfits with bonuses I will. 

 

I'd just mod them in, Not hard to edit a existing set and create a duplicate for the new bonus. Most of the sets look like crap imo anyway. I don't like the new armor sets at all.

 

if they do make them have bonuses that WILL cause a crap storm, as people hate that crap in DLC content. Especially if the set bonus is better than whats naturally available in the game as they often are with DLC stuff.

Edited August 15 by Scyris (see edit history)

[Riamus]

I only see bonuses on DLC armor as a problem for console players who can't mod their game.  If the set had some bonus I really want, it is very easy to just add that bonus to an existing armor.  I can live without the special visuals that new armor would have.  And if I really wanted the visuals, then I could choose to buy it.

 

If they did add something like a new workstation as a DLC, then I would be upset unless it was part of a full expansion.  But I didn't think they would go that route.  It would alienate a lot of fans.

Edited August 15 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Mister Forgash]

Probably unpopular opinion, don't care:

Let the DLC come.  .. I've been seeing Day 1 DLCs for over 10 years now. Not that I think -that- is a good practice, but just using that as my point of perspective that 6 months down the line, or whatever- I don't feel TFP stomping on my trust insecurities.

I also don't mind if it's cosmetic only, or if it includes buffs.

If it's thematic, balanced, and reasonably priced, I'll buy it.

Anyone that doesn't like it can keep their money.

[Catdaddy]

Well, there is a weather overhaul on the roadmap, so I'm guessing the current @%$#storm is probably just a placeholder. The new one will have HD graphics and directional sound so you can hear it whizz right over your head.

[bdubyah]

Yeah, I've more than got my money's worth out of this game already. If they release paid DLCs I would take the same approach I do with any other game I have. Do I like the DLC? Is it something interesting to me? Does it seem worth its price? Then I make a decision. As long as the outfits aren't just P2W cash grabs I don't see an issue with them. cough cough ARK:SA

[Adam the Waster]

11 hours ago, Rotor said:

The Bandits have to have a an outfit?

WERES MY OVERLORD ARMOR 

[Suxar]

9 hours ago, Roland said:

As long as the content is purchased from the Steam store while not playing the game I’m fine with it. I don’t like when things are sold in game. If the new outfits are shown in the trader inventories but greyed out since I haven’t purchased them, that will upset me. But if they simply don’t exist in the game until I buy them on the Steam store and install them then I don’t see anything wrong with it. The base game comes with a nice variety of outfits as is. 

There is also the other side of the coin. When I bought Conan exiles, I also bought some cosmetic DLC along with it. I later regretted it more than once. The construction menu turned out to be overloaded. Perhaps this is interesting for a network game to stand out, but for a solo game there is no point.
But I liked their global DLC with the new island.

[Chaton Noir]

On 8/15/2024 at 9:49 AM, Old Crow said:

 

Yeah, it almost feels like they don't want people to read it. Or just didn't bother thinking "hey, people might want to read it."

If you zoom in to 500% and open the image in a new tab, it will be displayed in high resolution. The higher the zoom, the higher the resolution the image will be opened in a new tab. I do not know why it works this way.  @Roland, could you convey this to those who are involved in the site?

[Suxar]

13 minutes ago, Chaton Noir said:

If you zoom in to 500% and open the image in a new tab, it will be displayed in high resolution. The higher the zoom, the higher the resolution the image will be opened in a new tab. I do not know why it works this way.  @Roland, could you convey this to those who are involved in the site?

This is not a website, but a browser. Chrom behaves this way, but Firefox does not.

[Chaton Noir]

25 minutes ago, Suxar said:

This is not a website, but a browser. Chrom behaves this way, but Firefox does not.

I use Firefox, and it works like this.

Everything is perfectly visible when viewed in high resolution.

 

Edited August 16 by Chaton Noir (see edit history)

[Suxar]

8 minutes ago, Chaton Noir said:

I use Firefox, and it works like this.

Everything is perfectly visible when viewed in high resolution.

Apparently I didn't understand you correctly.
In Chrom, when you open it in another window, it retains the same scale as the window from which the call was made. Firefox sets the zoom to 100%.
If we talk about the resolution of the image, then when you simply click on it, a preview window opens, where it is compressed to the size of the screen. Opening in a new window opens the image in its original size.
It would probably be nice to add an "open in original size" button for the preview window.

[InfiniteWarrior]

10 hours ago, Scyris said:

I'd just mod them in.

The thought occurred to me in another instance of this topic: How are microtransactions supposed to work in a mod-supported game run on community administered servers? What incentive is there for anyone to buy even "cosmetic" items, with or without bonuses, when mod authors will be producing them for free or maybe a pittance in donations? It doesn't make any sense. That's just one more reason I sincerely hope TFP will contemplate this one far more thoroughly. And just how much, if anything, does this have to do with console manufacturer's demands anyway? Console users are accustomed to having to pay to install anything, whether created by a mod author or not, on a console system. PC players, otoh, are not and this is technically a multiplayer game.

Bethesda's solution for the Atomic Shop in Fallout 76, of course, was to disallow modding the game despite having promised to implement mod support at some point in the future and despite it being run on central servers that literally can't have custom, game changing mods on them because they'd change the game for everyone playing it. So, unless modding is disallowed in 7DTD, I'm just not seeing the incentive on any side other than the console manufacturers'. And disallowing modding to make it happen would cause a firestorm, I'm sure.

[Riamus]

37 minutes ago, Suxar said:

Apparently I didn't understand you correctly.
In Chrom, when you open it in another window, it retains the same scale as the window from which the call was made. Firefox sets the zoom to 100%.
If we talk about the resolution of the image, then when you simply click on it, a preview window opens, where it is compressed to the size of the screen. Opening in a new window opens the image in its original size.
It would probably be nice to add an "open in original size" button for the preview window.

Yeah, it's just an issue with the preview window.  Open it in a new tab/window and you'll see original size (up to monitor resolution).  At 1080p, it's pretty readable, though not perfect.  At higher resolutions, it should be very easy to read.  In reality, the original image should be at a lower resolution.  They clearly wanted to have it at a high resolution, but that's a problem for people who aren't at that resolution as resizing it down causes it to be harder to read.  It would be better for the original image size to not exceed 1080p, which I think most people are at, if they aren't at a higher resolution than that.  Even in the preview window, a 1080p sized image should still be legible even though it's smaller in the preview.

 

But it really isn't a big deal to begin with.  Open it in a new window or tab and you'll see it fine.  If that's too much to ask, well....

Edited August 16 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Arez]

17 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

Business ethics are social as they involve "employees, customers, society, the environment, shareholders and stakeholders" (actually, human beings all), not personal moral codes. The comparison of human beings to asteroids is...well, too absurd to approach, really. Not saying you're absurd, just the asteroid example.

What I'm saying, which I thought seemed pretty clear, is we're operating naturally, exactly as we're supposed to at this given time period. Just like everything else, for good or ill. We're primates using artificial systems to help bring us together in numbers too large for our biological, primate tendencies. Put 1000 chimps together and watch them rip each other apart.

 

There's this idea that we should be better - but better than what? This is the best we can be right now. Maybe in the future there will be systems in place that are more intelligent and leave little to no room for us to indulge in our exploitive tendencies, but the people alive today will never see that.

 

Speaking of being alive...I've been thinking. Some scientists have theories (or hypotheses) that time traveling to the past is possible. They even come up with some math to wrap around it. But you know that human beings aren't responsible enough to keep something like that under wraps. They would certainly have revealed it to us, throughout history. Maybe the reason we haven't seen human time travelers, is because our species didn't make it long enough to discover how to do it. 

19 hours ago, Suxar said:

Just because you can't save a copy doesn't mean others can't.

Hey. Why do you have to make it personal? Why would you assume I'm speaking about myself? I'm speaking for the people. 

You have a game from 1996, well I have a microphone from 1976. A delicate microphone. Original brass capsule. And it is in near pristine condition and I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that it sounds better than any new microphone that you could buy today. Any!

 

So don't go around assuming that I don't take care of my schnitzel. Cause you know what they say about people that assume....... 

[Suxar]

41 minutes ago, Arez said:

You have a game from 1996, well I have a microphone from 1976. A delicate microphone. Original brass capsule. And it is in near pristine condition and I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that it sounds better than any new microphone that you could buy today. Any!

This suggests that if a person considers something valuable to himself, then he will save it.

[Gamida]

21 hours ago, Suxar said:

I still play Master of Orion II sometimes. It came out in 1996.
Just because you can't save a copy doesn't mean others can't.

 

I played Leisure Suit Larry when it originally came out in the 80's.

I still have some of the original games still in their boxes somewhere in my attic.

I have all the versions in my steam library right now but sadly haven't played them yet.

 

Edited August 16 by Gamida (see edit history)

[BFT2020]

If these outfits were not planned as being part of the base game, what is the issue if they are released as DLC?  

 

If you had to purchase a DLC to get bandits in the game even though they were already part of the planned game, then I could see someone getting upset.

 

I will note that when they dropped the roadmap, the details were added to the A22 / 1.0 Dev Diary so they were not trying to hide anything