- Thread starter 4MinuteWarning
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2dcg anal sex animated bdsm big ass big tits corruption creampie fantasy female domination furry futa/trans gay graphic violence groping group sex harem horror humiliation lactation lesbian male domination male protagonist milf mobile game monster girl multiple penetration oral sex possession pregnancy romance stripping tentacles titfuck transformation trap vaginal sex virgin voiced voyeurism
Good to know. I stopped playing this a long time ago. Permanent stop now
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
As much as I despise paywalls, I'd really recommend you at least play the game if/when someone posts the final act here. It's a genuinely great game and if the devs hadn't paywalled the last act and instead had put the game up from the start as a one-time purchase, I would've bought it. I can't support the practice of giving you everything else for free so you feel compelled to pay for the ending since you're already invested, but the game really is good so if it ever leaks here I'd really recommend you pick it back up.
- Jan 13, 2019
- 607
- 1,291
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
PLEASE GOVERMENT STOP PRINTING SHIT SO I CAN SEE THAT HUMONGOUS DRAGON DICK IN THE LAST ACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
Censorship by inflation. That's a new one!
- Nov 22, 2018
- 68
- 192
Do you people not play regular video games? Have some faith in our Russian cracker comrades, since its on steam when version 1.0 hits they will crack it and release it into the wilds. Then we can experience the story fully and decide for ourselves whether we think the devs are worth supporting.
Yes, people do miss the point that this forum is PIRATE site and someone will leak the game here for FREE. No need to bash devs that wants to sell games and not give everything for free.
- Sep 28, 2020
- 1,769
- 3,593
Despite the argument being solid, I can't shake the feeling that saying that basically to the devs face (since they come around this thread) is pretty shitty and disrespectful...
- Nov 22, 2018
- 68
- 192
Its actually the opposite, I respect the devs enough to believe that they understand the simple concept that people will pay for games they like regardless if its available to pirate, and people pirating their games will not pay for it regardless of how much DRM they try to add.
- Jan 13, 2019
- 607
- 1,291
Agree respect 4MinuteWarning creator of glorius ribbed mouth watering dragon cock plzDespite the argument being solid, I can't shake the feeling that saying that basically to the devs face (since they come around this thread) is pretty shitty and disrespectful...
- Jul 17, 2019
- 2,295
- 957
"Try before you buy" is a thing. I've personally paid for several games I pirated this way, games I wouldn't have touched otherwise.
Also, "piracy leads to people buying the game" has been the main 'moral' argument for piracy for the longest time. Whether it's as true as they say, who knows.
So you are the person responsible for the disappearance of game demos and shareware games?
Not to mention that is some SCOTUS-tier mental gymnastics right there. "This game is so good, I like it very much, but I'll be damned if I give a single penny to the people who made it because they allowed me to try it instead of buying it blindly! I only buy games that won't let me see what they're like!" Just admit that you're a filthy pirate like the rest of us here, and move on.
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
You're intentionally misinterpreting my point. I've never hidden the fact that I'm a filthy pirate. My point was that the content they gave us was more than a demo. Act V is literally the end of the game, and the wrapping up of acts I to IV. They gave us almost the entire game and then said "Sorry, but if you want to see how this game you've played for hours and are now heavily invested in ends, you have to pay." If they had released a short demo to try and then sold the full product as a retail purchase, I'd buy it. Instead, they released everything but the end of the game for free, which is a method of manipulation I just can't support.So you are the person responsible for the disappearance of game demos and shareware games?
Not to mention that is some SCOTUS-tier mental gymnastics right there. "This game is so good, I like it very much, but I'll be damned if I give a single penny to the people who made it because they allowed me to try it instead of buying it blindly! I only buy games that won't let me see what they're like!" Just admit that you're a filthy pirate like the rest of us here, and move on.
Demo can only be made for a finished game. The Ravager is under continuous development, with art and option changes, bug fixes, etc. If they release a demo that is rudimentary/unplayable, they will scare away customers.
So it is not manipulation, it is simply how it works.
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
I recognize that. In the beginning, the game was and to an extent still is relying a lot on crowdfunding through patreon and SS for development costs. So it makes a lot of sense to put a product out there for free. But the argument that they can't put a demo out because the game is still under development doesn't hold a lot of weight for me. Act II is completely finished and has been for years, and would make for an excellent demo. it's relatively short, has plenty of opportunities for sexual content, and ends with you finding your lair and getting set up to strike back. A perfect showcase of the game's gameplay, and general tone and direction.
Perhaps manipulation isn't the best way to describe it. It certainly may not be intentional. I can see how the devs would see paywalling act V as an obvious choice, a reward for those who paid actual money for it. I dunno. I'm not the most articulate person and it's difficult for me to explain exactly why this rubs me the wrong way. But it does. I just can't reconcile putting the majority of the game out there for free and then paywalling the end.
- Jul 17, 2019
- 2,295
- 957
Could have fooled me. Moral grandstanding about how it's 'unsupportable' a developer isn't bending over backwards to give you their work for free tends to do that. Whatever 'support' even means here. It's certainly not paying the devs.
Yes, and? The devs have spent at least an order of magnitude more time, effort and emotional investment than you, and now you're telling them "gibs game for free 'cus I likes it"?
4MW also did this course change mid-development, and your free part of the game also benefits from paying customers.
WTF are you on? What exactly are they manipulating here? Is this some sort of fancy new human right that you must be able to complete any game you like, regardless of whether you're willing to pay for it? AFAIK, there were never any promises that such things won't happen, and I think at one time even the development of Act V itself was not entirely certain.
AFAICT, the devs see the paywalling as a way to draw more resources to the game and make all of it better. Including the free parts. Have you actually looked at the changelogs and what the people on their payroll are doing?
And would open the floodgates to a million more people howling how the devs "went back on their word", "took the game from us", etc. Never mind the Patreon obligations, which I think were predicated on those acts being free.
If it's between that and a single you being a little grumpy, I know where my preference lies.
Because you're selfish, and don't want to give up your bone once you've got it. Every dog will do the same. Doesn't mean dogs are good at civilisation, and it's civilisation that produces dragon porn games.
I literally can't think of how this 'manipulation' is bad, except in the most general manner ("money corrupts", etc) and can show you how your line of thinking leads to definitely worse outcomes - 4MW announces Act V paywall, everyone shuns them, 4MW goes back to a Patreon model and most of the changes enabled by the expanded team we've gotten since go poof.
Edit:
Not with shareware. There used to be games where you could play through a pretty large chunk of the game, and then hit the paywall. Sometimes literally.
I cannot read your post any other way than gutting that entire model because it's somehow morally 'bad'. The reasons it died out were largely financial, and the ability of developers to get away with half-patching their product for half of forever to keep up appearances.
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
I was trying to argue from a position of good faith, but it seems like you're determined to paint me as the bad guy here. I am not a perfect individual. I'm on a pirate site after all, so of course I'm selfish. But I am not trying to take the moral high ground here, nor was that ever my intention. I simply stated that it felt like the devs were being manipulative by paywalling Act V alone, and that as a result I would not buy the game. I wasn't taking any sort of huge moral stand there, I was just expressing my own personal opinion. You're the one who took such huge issue with that that you decided to start putting words in my mouth and making it a huge issue. It certainly wasn't my intention to come off as judgemental towards the devs, and I do apologize if that's how it felt. All marketing is manipulation in some form or another, I was simply saying that this specific form was not one I wanted to support.Could have fooled me. Moral grandstanding about how it's 'unsupportable' a developer isn't bending over backwards to give you their work for free tends to do that. Whatever 'support' even means here. It's certainly not paying the devs.
Yes, and? The devs have spent at least an order of magnitude more time, effort and emotional investment than you, and now you're telling them "gibs game for free 'cus I likes it"?
4MW also did this course change mid-development, and your free part of the game also benefits from paying customers.
WTF are you on? What exactly are they manipulating here? Is this some sort of fancy new human right that you must be able to complete any game you like, regardless of whether you're willing to pay for it? AFAIK, there were never any promises that such things won't happen, and I think at one time even the development of Act V itself was not entirely certain.
AFAICT, the devs see the paywalling as a way to draw more resources to the game and make all of it better. Including the free parts. Have you actually looked at the changelogs and what the people on their payroll are doing?
And would open the floodgates to a million more people of how the devs "went back on their word", "took the game from us", etc. Never mind the Patreon obligations, which I think were predicated on those acts being free.
Because you're selfish, and don't want to give up your bone once you've got it. Every dog will do the same. Doesn't mean dogs are good at civilisation, and it's civilisation that produces dragon porn games.
I literally can't think of how this 'manipulation' is bad, except in the most general manner ("money corrupts", etc) and can show you how your line of thinking leads to worse outcomes - 4MW announces Act V paywall, everyone shuns them, 4MW goes back to a Patreon model and most of the changes enabled by the expanded team we've gotten since go poof.
At no point did I claim that I or anyone else was entitled to the game for free. I said the opposite, in fact, my point was that they should paywall the whole game. They did do this course change mid-development, yes, which is why I have a problem with it. It wasn't clearly set up from the beginning that part of the game would be paywalled.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm disrespecting the devs, or have no appreciation for their work. That is simply not true. I have nothing but respect for their work, and what they've accomplished is truly amazing. I have no intention of buying the game, yes, but neither do I feel entitled to it. If it leaks here? Sure, i'll play it. if it doesn't? I'll enjoy what the devs have put out there for free and not worry about it.
I don't know what I did to offend you but whatever it was, I do apologize.
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
Okay, it seems like you might be misinterpreting what I'm saying. Which is on me, because I haven't done the best job of explaining. The key thing about shareware is that it's set up from the beginning as "Here's a product, you get x amount of days to use it for free (or use it for free up to a certain point) and after that you must pay to keep using it." No problem with that. Ravager released a product for free, made no mention of the fact that the ending of the game would be paywalled, and only announced that once the game was well into development and people had already played a decent chunk of the game.Edit:
Not with shareware. There used to be games where you could play through a pretty large chunk of the game, and then hit the paywall. Sometimes literally.
I cannot read your post any other way than gutting that entire model because it's somehow morally 'bad'. The reasons it died out were largely financial, and the ability of developers to get away with half-patching their product for half of forever to keep up appearances.
I recognize that this was probably not a deliberate manipulation and was more of a development decision than anything else. That's totally fair. But that doesn't mean that I can't criticise what I see as a possibly manipulative decision, or at the least take issue with it not being made clear from the start that the game may not be entirely free.
The second act has also been modified several times (art, sounds, etc.), but it's fine. I understand your frustration. It's like being told during sex, before orgasm, that you have to pay to continue.
But you must have guessed that they don't spend years working on something just to publish it for free. The team would like to have secure support for its work. Can't blame them for that, the game is enjoyable without the fifth act.
- Jul 17, 2019
- 2,295
- 957
I have nothing against you personally. For all I know, you've already rescued 13 kittens today, while I'm sitting on my ass and doing nothing useful because of fucking heat.
I just don't like people espousing poorly thought-out views, and I'm a grumpy asshole. And saying "I can't support the practice..." definitely looks like trying to take moral high ground to me. If you'd said "It is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game.", I would not have even blinked.
But the point is that it is not marketing. It's basically 4MW diving headfirst into game dev, going with the traditional Patreon route, and that's how it turned out. He's a victim of his own success, and he can't turn in any direction without angering someone. You're just picking what he (and I, but I'm a nobody
) think is the least damaging option, and outing it as the bad choice.Edit: In any case, if it was a choice between all game dev turning to the "pay for the last 20%+achievements" or whatever model, vs what we have now, I'd selfishly support it in a heartbeat. Because it is far, far less manipulative of the players. Probably won't end well, because it'll also be a lot more abusive of the actual devs, but hey, we don't care about them here.
/editCould gave fooled me:
"Pirate it and don't pay, because you'll be paying for only 20% of the game" is what it looks like to me. I suppose you could argue that it's not technically entitlement, but come on.
In that case, Ravager would be dead. Or at least a shadow of its current self. I am sorry, but you're not portraying yourself in a particularly good light here.
It was not promised it would not be, either. And in any case, the game is not complete, yet, and even the parts you think are finished are actually getting regular touch-ups.
Why is it a problem for you, anyway? You did not pay money for the game, so no promise was broken. Games change course mid-development all the time, and a bunch of them ask money for being a beta tester. Now that is manipulative.
So, how is "I'll steal their game (if it's convenient for me to do so), something they've staked their livelihood on" respectful?
You have weird and selfish opinions. That's fine, I have those, too.
But you also advocate and seek vindication for them in a public forum, to the point of telling others to sabotage the dev, which you can't just apologise yourself out of.
This is a pirate forum. It's par for the course here. But it's also telling others to cooperate with you in an effort to shut 4MW down and drive him away from game dev, to the point that if everyone had followed your advice we'd have a considerably poorer game now, and very likely no more similar games in the future.
So? Why do you think you're entitled to this? And I don't mean the game, I mean the "no less than X% of the game paywalled".
And, again, I think I recall Act V only becoming a certainty partway through development. Promises were made about the free part.
You still haven't told us what is manipulative about all of this? Unless you think 4MW should have had everything mapped out from the beginning, and told you everything upon the first release. This is nor how game dev works, even srsface game dev with budgets in the millions.
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2017
- 1,193
- 1,375
Saying "I can't support the practice" was me saying "I, personally, can't support this practice." That, to me at least, is no different than saying " is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game."I have nothing against you personally. For all I know, you've already rescued 13 kittens today, while I'm sitting on my ass and doing nothing useful because of fucking heat.
I just don't like people espousing poorly thought-out views, and I'm a grumpy asshole. And saying "I can't support the practice..." definitely looks like trying to take moral high ground to me. If you'd said "It is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game.", I would not have even blinked.
But the point is that it is not marketing. It's basically 4MW diving headfirst into game dev, going with the traditional Patreon route, and that's how it turned out. He's a victim of his own success, and he can't turn in any direction without angering someone. You're just picking what he (and I, but I'm a nobody
Could gave fooled me:
"Pirate it and don't pay, because you'll be paying for only 20% of the game" is what it looks like to me. I suppose you could argue that it's not technically entitlement, but come on.
In that case, Ravager would be dead. I am sorry, but you're not portraying yourself in a particularly good light here.
It was not promised it would not be, either. And in any case, the game is not complete, yet, and even the parts you think are finished are actually getting regular touch-ups.
Why is it a problem for you, anyway? You did not pay money for the game, so no promise was broken. Games change course mid-development all the time, and a bunch of them ask money for being a beta tester. Now that is manipulative.
So, how is "I'll steal their game (if it's convenient to do so), something they've staked their livelihood on" respectful?
You have weird and selfish opinions. That's fine, I have those, too.
But you also advocate and seek vindication for them in a public forum, to the point of telling others to sabotage the dev, which you can't just apologise yourself out of.
This is a pirate forum. It's par for the course here. But it's also telling others to cooperate with you in an effort to shut 4MW down and drive him away from game dev, to the point that if everyone had followed your advice we'd have a considerably poorer game now, and likely no more similar games in the future.
So? Why do you think you're entitled to this? And I don't mean the game, I mean the "no less than X% of the game paywalled".
And, again, I think I recall Act V only becoming a certainty partway through development. Promises were made about the free part.
You still haven't told us what is manipulative about all of this? Unless you think 4MW should have had everything mapped out from the beginning, and told you everything upon the first release. This is nor how game dev works, even srsface game dev with budgets in the millions.
Also, I think you missed something. The guy I was replying to initially specifically said that he would not be buying the game. I wasn't advocating for someone to pirate the game instead of buying it, I was advocating for someone to pirate the game because they had already made the decision not to buy it. And it's a good game, so since they weren't gonna pay, I said "Hey, you should still play it if it ever leaks here."
I never advocated for people to pirate instead of pay, I only advocated that they pirate if they had already made up their mind not to pay.