GameRager: Don't just use the word fallacy then.....show(in plain english if you could) how it's fallacious. Then I can see whether it truly is for myself.

GameRager: To me/others being truly "extreme/extremist" on stuff like slavery would either mean going full against or pro...i.e. those wanting ANY slavery banned(like pet ownership/etc and stiff punishments for those who do such) and those full pro slavery(who support it in any form). Simply not liking it in it's human form and being against that would be a more rational/less extremist stance on such, imo.

GameRager: people(if they want more ownership and drm free options) should pester and push those with power and money in the right directions instead of just hating drm and hoping for the best...it takes actions to get stuff done, after all.

GameRager: Now the question to ask here now is do they simply not care about such people or are they just unwilling to change major aspects of their business model to sate the wants of a minor handful of people?

GameRager: All in all, I thank you for putting up with me thus far and gearing me out while being civil/etc...it is welcome and appreciated.

Also I hope you eventually get and enjoy said game if you are thinking about such.

rjbuffchix: This is where I took issue and said it is fallacious reasoning. I tried giving the example of how most gamers here are quite satisfied to "miss out" on microtransaction battle royale "culture". In later posts, I gave the hypothetical examples of how people take extreme positions against things like slavery (more after quote below) or serial murders. No one is arguing for people to be more moderate and accept some slavery or some killing in order to be more "balanced in the middle" or "experience more in life". These examples I gave are to show that extreme reasoning should not be dismissed just because it is extreme, also to show that not all things are worth experiencing if you have to put up with extreme negatives.

==================
I don't want to get too off-track because this is actually a very complicated discussion. The short answer is that humans are generally considered to be morally protected, while a pet like a goldfish, is not. In other words, it is "ok" ("morally permissible") to have a goldfish as a pet, but NOT ok to have another human as a pet. It is possible btw that it may not be morally permissible to keep certain highly-intelligent species as pets either.

================
The dirty little secret is that the consumer doesn't really have a reliable voice in all of this.

You know of the term "whale", right? They allow microtransaction games to keep pumping out the garbage, even if a majority of other consumers are doing their best to "vote with their wallet" and not buy all the items. So what good does "action" or "pestering" do in that case? The whale will buy all the items and thus the games keep getting worse like this.

That said, it is possible for there to be "whales" in other (better) areas, like DRM-free. When I say that, I do NOT mean that DRM-free games should have microtransactions,etc. My idea is that, similar to a whale spending their money on all kinds of mobile junk, a gamer could choose to spend the majority of their gaming dollar at a site like GOG rather than Steam. Buying games at full price, preordering (though it has its own unpleasant factors), all help support DRM-free gaming.
==================
Also, I don't know about others but I'm not just sitting and hating DRM all day. I actively tell others about this site, about DRM-free in general, and about other DRM-free sources (like Bandcamp). I actively encourage people to support ownership by doing things like buying physical media instead of streaming. That's action. It is also VERY helpful to encourage small developers to release games DRM-free in addition to Steam. Due to Steam bias clouding everything, many may not have even thought about it. Or, they may have been reluctant (like the dev of Legends of Amberland seemed to be).
================
The biggest companies are not going to be swayed, barring some hypothetical scandal where their client goes down or people lose access to games. These giant companies know full well about DRM as they are actively choosing to include it every chance they get! What are we supposed to do, write a letter? they couldn't care less! They made their choice. I honestly don't wish them ill, I just wish they would reconsider and choose DRM-free. Until then, I will happily avoid giving them anymore of my money though I do respect your position too.
===================
I think it's a combination. The major aspect of their business model is to use Steam (or other proprietary client) as their platform. They are VERY unwilling to change this. In some cases they are simply ignorant of the fact that some gamers refuse to use these clients. In most cases, they are aware of DRM-free gaming but are just so married with the idea of control over the product that effectively they care more about that than about lost sales from DRM-free gamers.
===================
I too appreciate the discussion!! I know there are some places I didn't respond but have to get going for a bit. Anyway, nice way to tide the time over til this game is available on the dev's site via a direct link, Steam-free :)

GameRager: As I said that isn't what I consider to be "extremist"(I mean the extreme ends of a stance or issue, not those pro-anti something that is extreme).

My underlying point, though, was that being anti-human slavery isn't an extremist position/stance/belief....but rather if one was very pro or anti slavery in general/across multiple species/etc.

GameRager: I think the consumer can and does have a voice if they raise the right stink in the right way and in the right location.....heck, the pc movement irl shows this can be effective sometimes.

GameRager: You seem a bit more reasonable(you can at least talk about it with me, for starters), but how strong are you against DRM(This is how I can determine how reasonable you are on this from my pov).....what about cd keys and code wheels? Really bad or acceptable?

GameRager: We could all make a stink on social media to paint them in a light that gets them attention from the various outrage mobs and use them/media and news attention to use such people to get change that benefits us and does some good, for starters.

GameRager: Have a good one and here's hoping you get your game eventually. :)

rjbuffchix: Look at it this way, here is a range of numbers from 0-100. 0 is the lowest possible value here, 100 is the highest possible value. I am now asking for your personal "score" (along this range of numbers) on how acceptable you would consider human slavery to be. If you answer "0" it would mean "not at all acceptable in any amount". If you answer "100", I slowly walk and then begin running away from you lol, but your answer in that case would represent something like "perfectly acceptable, no exceptions would make it unacceptable". Both "0" and "100" (and anything heavily in that direction, like "10" or "90"), are literally the EXTREMES (in a math sense).

To put it another way, you say that "being anti-human slavery isn't an extremist position". Okay, but what about the few loons who are "pro-human slavery"? If you would recognize them as holding an extreme position, then you would have to recognize your own position as extreme (even though it is thankfully a case where most people hold this extreme position), since they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. I think I see what you're saying though. You are using the term extreme to mean "not mainstream". The problem with that, though, is that it is focusing on the people rather than ideas. To go back to the human slavery example, abolitionists were once considered the "extremists". See the issue?
========================
Imo that type of movement is just because companies are acting in fear. I think if companies don't back down to those folks, the companies may end up having even greater success. There are a lot of "pc movement" people, but also a lot of people who end up going in the other direction, not to mention the poor folks on the sidelines who don't want any of this political cloud over things and just want the games.
========================
I am in favor of user ownership. So while things like codewheels are obnoxious, I can live with them since they are under the user's control and essentially just an extra setup step entirely on the user's end. I am against ANYTHING that requires users to connect online to verify ownership, whether this is through a one-time check or a constant client connection. In short I am basically tolerant of DRM that is kept entirely user-side, offline. I would still prefer "no type of DRM at all". Along those lines, I like if a copy of a game allows LAN, without requiring multiple purchased copies.
=========================
That's actually an interesting point. It reminds me of how I have complained on this forum before that the Grimoire game belongs here, pointing out the wishlist entries and continued interest. It seems the wishlist didn't have a noticeable impact. On another previously wishlisted game that a lot of people wanted, Opus Magnum, it appeared that a media stink (rather than user wishlist votes) was what made the difference.
=========================

rjbuffchix: You too, my friend. Appreciate the discussion. On that note, I see the game is now available to buy as a direct download, through the "Support the Developer" edition. $30 price. Cue the complaints of "that's overpriced!!1111", while I add up recent non-RPG indie releases here and think the same. I have always said I'll pay more for DRM-free and to avoid Steam...guess this game is a good example. I hope more developers give the direct dl option, even if it is DRM-free on Steam and higher that the Steam price.

toupz111: Im sick of bullshit new games when good oldschool rpgs or old rpgs should get here :(

toupz111: Im sick of bullshit new games when good oldschool rpgs or old rpgs should get here :(