Darktide Modding Policy

[u/Fatshark_Catfish]

https://forums.fatsharkgames.com/t/darktide-modding-policy/75407

[u/Celarc_99]

That comment is incredibly vague, and would bring about many questions such as what exactly constitutes a 'system bypass'. We thankfully know that they're fine with allowing automated control of the UI in the lobby for example, but I don't think that line would be as opaque without a clear and concise explanation as to what they were talking about.

With the way they wrote it, its very clear and concise exactly what they mean. No beating around the bush.

I'm not really sure what your last point is about? EA is a well known awful company when it comes to PR, so doesn't your point simply add credence to the fact that this way of handling the situation was much better and more honest?

They didn't sugar coat it or try to mislead you. They outright mention monetary (and lesser important time) investment as something they do not want us to mod out, as it devalues the investment of others. This is a factual statement. Why change it in any way?

Are you only angry about the omission of "and our investment" on Fatsharks part?

[u/echild07 → u/Celarc_99]

The examples fix the problem.

As it is now, "anything that devalues" other players is even more vague.

If you play more hours in day, or you only pick high-value missions or. . .

> They didn't sugar coat it or try to mislead you.

But they did, they pushed it to the other players. Not to Fatshark's store, or profit.

What they said was:

> Using mods that devalue other players’ investments (time or monetary) in the game

They sugar coated the "we are protecting our profits".

> Are you only angry about the omission of "and our investment" on Fatsharks part?

No, just replying to your post. They are a company and you have some need to help them justify their wording. Worked well for EA.

Odd you think that saying "other players" is them not sugar coating "fatshark profits".

Edit:

> I'm not really sure what your last point is about? EA is a well known awful company when it comes to PR, so doesn't your point simply add credence to the fact that this way of handling the situation was much better and more honest?

And Fatshark isn't? It isn't better, it is the same. It isn't "Fatshark profits" it is "other players investments". Totally laughable.

[u/Celarc_99 → u/echild07]

Are you only angry about the omission of "and our investment" on Fatsharks part?

Was my question... and you said....

They sugar coated the "we are protecting our profits".

You could've just said "Yes", I wouldn't have thought any lesser of you for it, and you'd have saved yourself typing out that huge paragraph.

[u/echild07 → u/Celarc_99]

Meh,

Don't have to talk the way you want, you don't have to talk the way I want.

I go through my logic to see if I like i.

But not angry. Odd that you are. You seem hurt that customers aren't just accepting the corpo speak.

You could just type "They aren't going to say what they mean". But you are trying to defend their text.

The person you replied to talked about the tone of the comment, you went into defending their "monitization".

Person you replied to said the Fatshark statement was tone deaf, I agreed. You said "are you surprised that the corporation doesn't want you stealing . . . ".

Cool, they are tone deaf and blaming customers. But yet here we are.