Yes. They changed the game you paid for by removing content. What if your cable provider removed a bunch of channels you pay for, but haven’t watched yet, and turned them into PPV channels. Would you be upset? I would.
It's not a static game you pay once for and then expect to remain the same.
(And I haven't subscribed to cable TV in a long time, but when I did, the channel lineup was absolutely in flux, with channels getting added and removed as time went on.)
They’ve added tons and tons more content than they’ve removed. Net-net you have more content than you bought.
Like adding 10 channels and then taking away the hallmark channel.
I've been paying for Netflix - this month they probably took off 20~30 movies due to licenses ending.
You're gonna say, hold on, I haven't had a chance to watch all those yet.
Or if I paid for the costco membership for a year and then they take some product off the shelf and I say - hold on I haven't had the opportunity to purchase that yet.
Nothing in our society works this way
Also: it is entirely reasonable if I decided to cancel a Costco membership if they stopped carrying items I want. The same goes for Netflix, but they have less of an excuse from this perspective because as a consumer I don't care about licensing. At all.
They have, at least for content if not entire channels (don't have MLB Package or NFL Sunday Ticket? Too bad...enjoy the blackout). So have the streaming services. I'm mildly upset by it, but they've made it clear my only alternative is 'FU...cancel if you don't like it'.
edit: spelling
Isn't this about people getting upset over Rockstar removing cars they didn't pay for though?
Rockstar implemented a number of changes, including a "too hot to modify" mechanism that keeps you from modding (and thus making your own) cars you steal off the road.
In a game called Grand Theft Auto, you can no longer steal cars because they wanted more revenue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gtaonline/comments/149exbi/ao_about...
Just google "GTA changes" and read for yourself all the complaints.
Though just a hobby, gaming is the biggest media industry on the planet, and GTA Online is one of the biggest single money makers in the industry. To the tune of billions of dollars, so it's not exactly a silly little niche, this change will likely shift the needle for them by millions of dollars, in which direction I don't know.
I have little interrest in real life cars.
Real cars pollute much more, cost a lot, you have to take care of them, pay attention not to crash them, and you can kill innocent families with them
I don't habe the budget for a Lambo and modding a street car is illegal. And even if I could, I wouldn't have the interrest to spend a decade to build a racing car that I could just crash at any time.
I don't want a miata because I have bicycles and friends.
The plot around driving your own car is terrible. At least video games have a scenario
I can see myself doing a heist to have fun with friends in GTA, but not in real life
>Why would anyone take their hard earned money and purchase the sprite of a car and drive it around a video game
More like why would anyone take their hard earned money and burn it at the petrol station, on sets of tires, and on endless mechaniscs.
A video game is 60$, a Miata is 20.000$
And I already cycle around, so I won't just pollute and waste money for the track day
It would take like 2 hours to walk across the GTA V map on foot north to south.
> and if you don’t need a car it’s doubly true you don’t need a virtual car even if it is cheaper
Wait, are you saying if I don't need a car in reality, I don't need a car in a game? I'm not the Hero of Time, so I guess I don't need any weapons when playing Zelda. I'm not a soldier, so I don't need guns in Battlefield.
how dare you ?
You're repeating Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
that's socialism
> It’s not real they’re selling a fantasy.
and yes, that's capitalism
let me live in the 21st century of mass media and video games. I want that.
I want to fill my existential void with consumption and video games. They're fun.
You mean their virtual character becomes happy because of the virtual sports car they now drive?
Tricking people to confuse their selves, possessions and lives with a simulation is some genius marketing. How did they pull this off?
You don't need to understand it, you don't even need to accept it for it to happen. You're discussing in bad faith.
How did they pull it off? It’s human nature…
Which design elements can one add/remove to such game to make a difference? Asking because it feels like a stretch to make an argument and also just how all things naturally are (opposed to designed deliberately).
And most video games aren't like this. You'll see a contrast in how addictive games are monetized compared to others. The tactics have been well-known for a while (World of Warcraft pioneered many of them in 2004-06), and in the past decade it's become a lot more common. GTA Online isn't totally an addictive game, but it seems to have a bit of that with the ingame assets.
As a person who doesn't like to travel and drive I see virtually no utility in getting transported from one place to another in real world either.
> "...removes over 180 cars and motorcycles from in-game stores."
> "...making them nearly impossible to purchase and use if you don’t already happen to have them unlocked."
> "Yes, if you own one of these cars you can still drive it around and enjoy it."
> "...these vehicles will “occasionally be made available in other ways” citing the prize wheel..."
Is this really newsworthy? The options available for purchase have changed. I can see that might be mildly annoying, but it doesn't really seem like an HN topic.