Thanks for following up with this. Not sure why this person is quoting me referencing Google, as I made no mention of them. Like you, I use DuckDuckGo.

A couple of quick points: the easiest way by far to address this sort of issue is to do what SCPM did and reference CDP directly, which showed conclusively that OP's source was incorrect with respect to micropayments. Nothing more is needed, and it literally takes a few minutes to do it.

The bottom line, however, is that the OP should have assumed that the article she linked was bogus because it didn't provide sourcing for it's claim, which is a red flag.

That's incorrect. She linked a site that made a bogus claim re the CDP interview.

Ah, Muphry's law! Just ignore that (deliberate, well done that player) mistake. (;P)

It's a chore using the interwebs, since so few actually state their sources and it can take many searches to find details, like the year a book was published in which an author made a statement that everyone quotes, makes fact-checking that much more difficult. I spend most of my time online fact-checking and collating data, so it is irritating (but not unexpected) that I have to do this for others, too.

But the rest of my comment stands: this forum is the best place to determine if the OP's article is worth more than the cost of the electricity used to display the screen of text, since the expertise is all within a Kevin Bacon.

So long as the post wasn't a deliberate trawl, which seems a reasonable assessment.

About six weeks ago the OP responded to someone asking for help with a game. She posted a Steam link and told them to delete stuff from their Windows registry, and to not bother backing up the registry beforehand.

Was that a practical joke, or very poor judgement?

Needless to say, I'm no longer inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. The issue re this thread is minor, but I am troubled by this person's conduct on the forum in general.

Cheers.

Buckle up folks because I am going to play "devil's" advocate for a bit here:

(I am only posting to fix some mistakes you made and show you how you are wrong on some things with regards to your post and that user, so please don't take this too harshly or the wrong way....I am only doing it to reply in good faith and not insult anyone. :))

Using someone else's research is still a tool of sorts, though not in some literal definitions of the word.

Criticism does not always equal trolling, even if much trolling is critical of others.

Also criticisms are not always meant to insult(some just take things too harshly and read bad intent behind some people's words and assume the worst as you seem to be doing a bit of here), or are used every time for bad reasons.

Also criticism can still be good intentioned and valid/useful even if someone doesn't follow their own advice.

Just as you seem to be taking that one user's replies as possible trolling, he took the OP's post a certain way as well....not everyone will read/interpret posts the same way.

That user likely was skeptical of the OP's intent, as some(in general) online like to do that....post misleading article and posts without fact checking to stir the pot online. This is not to say that was OP's intent, but the user you are replying to might have thought it might be such and replied accordingly.

As for why they didn't provide proof.....often many like to just post and move on from some topics, and tbf it is always a thread poster's/article poster's job first and foremost to make sure their posts are correct and correct them if need be, more so than other people reading such.

Google IS a tool, actually, as it can lead one to proper sources of information....it is a search engine, specifically, which IS a tool.

This is a tad hyperbolic, except for the final bit about insults....that user likely thought you were being insulting, though and thus that is likely why they lashed out.

read edited text

Good advice....well said and I agree near 100%.

Yeah, that's poor form. And it doesn't really matter whether it was deliberate (and nasty) or accidental (and foolish), since the (naive) readers are the ones who would pay for the mistake if-or-when the advice resulted in catastrophic damage to the gaming system because of a careless or mistaken attempt to tinker with the configuration, so I see why your dander is up.


edit: I am very tired.

Toodle pip!

Read the corrections others posted...the OP post was a bit in error.

Also I don't get why people(in general) are so upset....if the content is cosmetic only and not needed to play the game/win the game and is bundled/decently priced I don't see why it is seemingly as bad as those who do such in a much worse fashion(pay to win/etc)

They had bonuses and such...they offered a physical merch. store discount to preorders and also at one point offered a free game here to preorders as well.

From the corrections I think they are being not as bad as EA and co.

I don't think she means harm. She's struggling -- like many of us are -- but perhaps she can learn from her mistakes, and it is to that end that my criticisms are made.

Im in full support of preorder bonuses and I dont get the hate for them considering theyve been around since the begjnning.

My comment about cosmetic micrtransactions was directed toward games that you already paid full price for. If you pay full price you sbould get a full game snd not have to pay additional for skins. They dont want to release a full product or create expansions anymore, but have no problem making you pay for content that shouldve been included in the full price.

I actually love the idea of cosmetic preorder bonuses or ingame pets because they offer no advantage, but reward the support and loyalty. Then again I have no problem with any preorder bonus, but I dont see how people against them get upset about cosmetic bonuses.

As far as CDPR going the way of EA, i posted a retraction after two others pointed out that i misunderstood the plans for cyberpunk. I understood they would have MT on top of being a full priced game, but i had no idea the MP would be the portion with MT and it was standalone and possibly free.

Of course i was wrong about them going the way of EA, but i didnt mean theyre even nearly as bad, just that this type of practice makes it seem they are heading in that direction. Of course my initial comment was misguided and based on me being wrong about their plans.

I dont know what the entire discussion about google being a trusted source is about. From skimming it seems to be regarding the release plans for cyberpunk. You cant exactly find peer reviewed journals regarding video game releases, so google is one of the only places to look. Of course the reader needs to evaluate the source of the information, but game journalists should be a trusted source. The point of journalism is to share facts that should be verified by the journalist, or at least the credibility of the information sbould be shared by the writer. This is why journalism is dead in the current year and its really sad. Unfortunately there are no good sources for gaming news anymore beyond the gamer getting the information directly from the developer

I realized earlier this year, with dawning horror, that I was a (reluctant) accidental journalist, since I strive for truth over fiction on the interwebs. The state of "journalism" is parlous, with most participants mere gazetteers pushing an agenda. When I watched a recent documentary, in which high-value brands (like the WSJ and NYT) lamented that, since they had given their readers the tools to spot fake news, their own credibility had suffered. Their solution was to reinforce their authority, through earnest pleading it seemed.

Wrong.

The only solution is to write transparently, so that further research is assisted by their work, and the summaries are more synopses than editorial opinion. Twenty years ago the rule for news reporting prohibited the use of adjectives. Just simple declarative sentences, sans embroidery, to explain the latest happenings.

Me as well.

I think that if they decide to make some content and specifically plan to set it aside for later sale(Story DLC or even packs of cosmetic dlc) then that should be ok. If they actually say it was for the main game then cut it to make money imo that shouldn't be ok....but to me there is a difference between the two and they should be fairly compared with such in mind and not all lumped into one basket(by others I mean).

I also think some(not all, but some) are entitle nowadays....many years back players paid around the same($50 or so) per game and many games had less content than now for the same prices we pay now.

Agreed

Not a problem...we all make mistakes, after all.

I also like preorder bonuses. Plus micro-transactions make it easier to buy any stuff online faster. I want to create my own app for micro-transactions one day. I read how would it cost to build an app at https://spdload.com/blog/cost-of-uber-like-app/ and I think it could be quite profitable. Hope I'll finish my app next year.

I like herpes. And gonorrhea!

As an expert at www.websitedesignsauckland.com, I must say, creating an app for micro-transactions, it can be a profitable venture if properly executed. However, it's crucial to consider various factors such as market demand, target audience, features, and development costs before starting the development process. Seeking advice from experienced app developers or consultants can help you make informed decisions and increase your chances of success.