Then, responding to those who have said he’s “only doing this for the money", Szymanski tweeted: “Yes, no fucking shit. I make games for a living. If I didn’t want to earn money from them I wouldn’t charge money for them.”

The game follows the premise of being trapped in an underwater submarine out of necessity to capture deep pictures.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s a 5 dollar game (being generous) that was already overpriced at $6.

    Facts and opinions are different things.

    If you don’t like the game, or think it’s overpriced, don’t buy it. The dev should continue to price it as they see fit.

    When AAA publishers price games at $70, the solution is not to buy it. It’s not different here, except that $6 > $8 is not a difference most people (except the dev, due to volume) will care about.

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      And if the difference between $6 and $8 really is where they draw the line, they can always wait for a sale. I’ve bought many indie games on sale where I thought eh, that might be fun for $12 but not worth risking my $20

    • Minotaur@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well. Thankfully he never said that his statement was an objective fact.

      Seriously, what’s up with you people? Do you need every single statement prefaced with “this is only my subjective opinion and not concrete fact but-!” Or you’ll take it like they’re trying to preach the word of god?

      You’re not a computer. Why are you acting like one?

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Seriously, what’s up with you people?

        This tends to mean you’ve misunderstood a basic social norm.

        • Minotaur@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Like interpreting obvious opinion statements as objective fact?

            • Minotaur@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well, one, Jesus Christ, it’s not even my statement. Two, the guy saying “this game isn’t worth $8” is obviously a subjective statement because it literally cannot ever be an objective statement.

              Like. By definition.

              When you see a movie rating and someone rates it four out of five stars, you understand that’s not them declaring a universal constant, correct?

                • Minotaur@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  You can just say you goofed up and said something silly lmao. It’s more embarrassing to suddenly go “uhm, actually…. Have you considered I suddenly don’t want to talk about this anymore?” When confronted with an error on your part.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well. Thankfully he never said that his statement was an objective fact.

        They did. Just because you don’t explicitly say “this is a fact”, doesn’t mean you’re not making a statement of fact. “This is a $5 game” is a statement of fact. “I wouldn’t pay more than $5 for this game” is a statement of opinion. That’s the difference between humans reading a passage and computers doing the same. Humans take context and past experience into account, all of which say that the phrasing they originally used implies an objective fact.

        • Minotaur@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          No he didn’t. He said “this isn’t a $6 game, let alone an $8 game”. Both of those are subjective opinion statements. He is referring to the perceived value of the game being lower to the actual costs of the game ($6 and $8 respectively)

          This is really not a difficult thing. I’m not sure why so many Lemmy users are struggling with it

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            In the only perfectly logical interpretation of the comment, you would be correct. Unfortunately, humans are not always perfectly logical and will often say things that are illogical. The most common meaning intended by the phrase “this is a $5 game” is the illogical one of presenting it as an objective fact.

            I refuse to believe that this is the first time you’ve encountered an illogical statement.

            • Minotaur@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              So under your grand interpretation, you should default to just saying “no, when they said that they actually meant it in the wrong way”.

              You might just be too cynical and online to read man

              • howrar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                It’s fine (and expected in most human interactions) to default to assuming that the most commonly intended meaning is what’s intended. And no, that doesn’t mean you should respond like an asshole. Respond to the intended meaning of the original statement instead of commenting on how your use of the English language is superior to theirs.

                This is how human interactions work in general. It’s worth learning if you want to fit into society.

                • Minotaur@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Yep. The intended meaning of the original comment is a subjective opinion. There is literally no way for it not to be.

                  Hope this cleared things up for you. Really hoping you’re not a computer programmer or like… someone who has to talk to people in your day job.

                  • howrar@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    https://lemmy.ca/comment/8470067

                    I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said. If you choose to ignore it, then so be it. There isn’t really anything I can say to convince you that this is true. You just have to go out in the world and experience it for yourself.

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    you think we talk earthlingspeak?

                    Anyways I agree with howrar, and all the downvotes on your thread show how many people also do. Language isn’t something that College Board can really regulate. They can punish you for not following their rules, sure, but the thing about language is that it changes.