You're arguing semantics when you don't understand them. Nothing about "we want" implies *everyone*, it just implies there's more than one person. You're backpedaling because you shouldn't have said anything at all, you just didn't like what other people had to say.
I don't care if that's what Hopes said, I'm saying if his intention is what you say it is, it's not helping him to create an engaging narrative nor supply people with quality spank material. That's just how discussion works.
Well, while English does not distinguish between inclusive and exclusive "we", a sentence with "we" where people apart from the author are not known or introduced is generally understood to mean "everybody". That may be semantics but it is how the language works. And I don't see where I am backpedalling here. Yes, I did not like what you said but here it wasn't the content but the way you said it. If you'd've said "I want X" I wouldn't have commented on this. But I really dislike this way of trying to sound impactful when you are just stating your personal opinion which obviously is not shared by everybody.
And whether that creates an engaging narrative, well, it can be argued that that is precisely what he is going for - and as much as I like the fucky-fucky part of games, that does not create a narrative at all. And if you do not like this way of doing an AVN that is of course perfectly fine, but when somebody tell you "I will do things this way" complaining later that they do exactly that is a bit off. And "supplying people with quality spank material" wasn't the main intention, at least not in the way you seem to use it. So we can discuss how good this update (or the game in general) is, but trying to judge it on something it doesn't want to be is just a moot point in a discussion, and discussions also include that others will point out you making a moot point.
because we only buy that album when it released not paying that band for three years!!!
Did you pay for three years? Well, yeah. But that's also on you because that is precisely what Patreon does and wants to do. It wants to give artists support explicitely without them having to "be on a schedule", having to put out X amount of content in Y time, just read their mission statement.
To make one thing clear, I am not a fan of this "Patron" approach at all, be it Patreon, Subscribestar, or any other. I will buy the finished product or at the very least buy it during production without any additional cost (like an early access on Steam). I will certainly not subscribe to some sort of monthly payment. But if I did, I would check up on the rules and say that - no matter how slow for how little money a dev is - I need to accept and vote with my wallet, i. e. stop supporting.
But just for the record, there are bands (or individual singers or instrumentalists) on Patreon who do precisely that, work on the songs for their album while getting the monthly money. If you don't want to pay for that and want to wait for the finished product, I can understand - I am in the same boat. But why then act differently here?
