Asklemmy

43945 readers

574 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

"Paying customers" wishes vs creating a more accepting environment (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently watched a video about an unpolled change in old-school runescape that added the ability to change your character's pronouns, as well as have beards as female characters, and the community's reaction to it. Sadly, most of the runescape playerbase is pretty right leaning, with the expected reactions of "this is dumb why would they add this," "why add this unpolled," and "this is a medieval fantasy game not a dating simulator"

I wonder what people's thoughts on this are, as if you are a paying customer for a game, and the game has been promised to only add poll-approved changes, is this unreasonable and why? The game is "old-school runescape," the players are notoriously resistant to change, and are paying to keep the game as they like it. Can you pay to keep your uninclusive game uninclusive? I don't have a great argument against it past "this literally doesn't matter" which won't convince people who believe it does.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well the contents of this particular change aside I could see someone upset over the principle of it. I'm not familiar with old-school runescape but if the salespitch really was "no changes unless the community approves them in a poll" then this marks a breach of "contract" (I doubt them only ever adding stuff after polls was ever contractually agreed on) on the developers part. Now that door is open so what else are they going to change without a poll? Is this going to be a one off or will this now become a regular occurence where the developers go over the communities wishes?

So, again, the politics of this particular change aside I can absolutely see why a player would be upset by this change, it's not the change itself that is worrying but rather what that means for the future, if players were sold the idea of control this change robbed them of that control they were sold. But again I have no clue about old-school runescape so I don't know if the community just took the status-quo as granted and never had any promises made to them that only polled changesmwould happen.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Finally read this reply, the game was "sold" to the players with every little change being polled, and somewhat recently this has been loosened a bit without too much complaint as most people feel the devs have a good handle on what the players want.

This is sort of an issue of "they know what (most of) the players want, but they're doing what they think is better anyway." I think they would be upset regardless of if it was polled or not though, because they don't think it belongs in an "old school" game, but I was more wondering if it was the majority, is it okay for them to pay to make an uninclusive game for themselves.

[–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well in that context yeah the only reason to get upset about this is if you have a problem with the mechanic itself, otherwise they should and would have started protesting a while ago.

As for your question: Yes absolutely. Such is the consequence of freedom of speech: people will have opinions you dislike. This isn't some serious irl matter, it's about features in a video game so let them have whatever they want. In fact forcing inclusivity might be the least inclusive thing one can do. Sure voice your dislike if you see a group playing a game you don't like. That is your right. But it is also their right to play that game (and voice their dislike at your voiced dislike).

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think this is unreasonable but how far would you take It? If a game was actively promoting hate, and is an mmo where the majority can sway your thoughts, and this game is constantly teaching you to be more hateful but the players keep voting to keep it that way... I don't know at some point it seems like it becomes too much of a negative.

[–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The way I see it the point where it becomes too negative would also be the point where several laws would crack down on it anway (ie the game would be shut down for inciting violence) it's rare for an actual hate mob to skirt the line between "legally hateful" and "illegally hateful" for long so in that sense the problem would regulate itself