No.

You must not understand the definition of “crass,” then.

Wolfenstein has been an anti Nazi franchise since George H W Bush was President. So yes this is the expected marketing.

Basically every single Counterstrike/Call of Duty/Battlefields game has been about Terrorism which is a current political issue.

I mean, how’s is that a bad thing?

Great. I think it’s crass to use this for marketing purposes. If Nazis are in our midst, the answer is certainly not to buy a fucking video game.

And not because some or all of them didn’t make a group decision to stiff arm him, but because I can’t imagine there’s any convincing evidence of that.

Yes, what we should be doing is applauding as companies marshal anti-Nazi posturing as a marketing gimmick.

On a related note, Von Trier is an overrated director too.

The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” may not technically apply outside a courtroom, but I think it’s a good idea to stick to the spirit of the idea in general anyway.

If we are quicker to listen to these allegations, and more perpetrators get convicted, but the price of that is that more people also get falsely accused; that’s ultimately a trade I’d be willing to make.

That’s fine. But the majority of gamers do not agree with you. Free or low priced games that have Micros is a far more popular and frankly more practical way to finance games for the masses.

I understand the anger when they’re gating actual content behind the boxes(BF2, SoW), but if it’s just cosmetic items what’s the problem? Your black and white view on this is kind of ridiculous. You’re acting like they’re all exactly the same and there’s a pretty big difference between micro transactions in games…

Now we have finished product pretending its more product. I think its manipulative and unethical.

In a way, I consider this loot box trend as their comeuppance. Oh, you like consuming things? Well here you go, have all the consumption in the world! Gobble it up, spend spend spend!

Worth noting that Love’s speech rips off a lot from a piece Steve Albini wrote in 1993.

New content costs money to make. That’s not a solution. How does PUBG or Overwatch sustain the server costs in five years without some sort of in-game monetization of existing players?

Yep, the very fact that they are using loot boxes instead of simply having the items for sale is, to me, an immediate red flag. They are intentionally using predatory tactics when they don’t have to.

On the Ariel Pink tip, a recent sonic archaeology obsession of mine. The moment I heard this track, I immediately realized I’d discovered one of his on-the-DL influences.

I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I would genuinely be interested in a citation here ...