Why Inzoi Failed

[tretch95]

Wouldn't be allowed to be hosted on this site anyways; neither the game nor mods for it.

Thus this discussion should probably go to the off-topic forum.

 

[tanstaafl]

Wouldn't be allowed to be hosted on this site anyways; neither the game nor mods for it.

Thus this discussion should probably go to the off-topic forum.

Mods for it probably could if they were adult mods. Like the Skyrim mods thread.

 

[tretch95]

Mods for it probably could if they were adult mods. Like the Skyrim mods thread.

Can't find the exact link about the uploading/content rules, but anything around AAA / AA production games and their mods are not allowed on this site. That's what other forums like Loverslab are for, who in turn don't allow piracy at all.

I looked at the Steam site, and this is obviously not a Patreon game nor something made by two ppl in dad's garage in suburban Seoul.

 

[tanstaafl]

Can't find the exact link about the uploading/content rules, but anything around AAA / AA production games and their mods are not allowed on this site. That's what other forums like Loverslab are for, who in turn don't allow piracy at all.

I looked at the Steam site, and this is obviously not a Patreon game nor something made by two ppl in dad's garage in suburban Seoul.

I was talking about the skyrim mods thread that is still on general. They aren't hosted here. But there's a huge thread discussing them and updates. A thread discussing them is fine.

 

[That other person]

More important... when is the INZOI porn happening? With that character creation I'm sure people has to be working on that stuff. I mean fucking SIMS has porn and it doesn't even have looks like these

 

[Dark Lord Nova]

More important... when is the INZOI porn happening? With that character creation I'm sure people has to be working on that stuff. I mean fucking SIMS has porn and it doesn't even have looks like these

Well they're still working on WickedZOI, so don't expect it anytime soon—probably won't drop until sometime after the Mod Kit is out. In the meantime, there are some adult/nude mods for Zois already out there. I shared a link to them, that are on Nexus Mods in my thread a couple months back. Sadly, that's all we got right now. Lol

inZOI – Adult Mods

 

[That other person]

Well they're still working on WickedZOI, so don't expect it anytime soon—probably won't drop until sometime after the Mod Kit is out. In the meantime, there are some adult/nude mods for Zois already out there. I shared a link to them, that are on Nexus Mods in my thread a couple months back. Sadly, that's all we got right now. Lol

inZOI – Adult Mods

Oh hell yeah! I knew someone had to be working on that lol. I will be so sad when the mod comes out and I can't play it because of the game requirements, but I'll wait... the animations will happen and I will be there! Maybe it will get super optimized and stuff I don't know... Still, progress is happening!

On a different note... I really should start to figure out how to mod games

 

[Dark Lord Nova]

Oh hell yeah! I knew someone had to be working on that lol. I will be so sad when the mod comes out and I can't play it because of the game requirements, but I'll wait... the animations will happen and I will be there! Maybe it will get super optimized and stuff I don't know... Still, progress is happening!

On a different note... I really should start to figure out how to mod games

There are plenty of video tutorials on YouTube showing how to add mods to games—even for inZOI. You can also find some guides on how to actually make mods too. I've never made any myself, but I do know how to install them—thanks to YouTube even modders on Nexus Mods sometimes provide instructions where to install mods. Lol.

 

[That other person]

There are plenty of video tutorials on YouTube showing how to add mods to games—even for inZOI. You can also find some guides on how to actually make mods too. I've never made any myself, but I do know how to install them—thanks to YouTube even modders on Nexus Mods sometimes provide instructions where to install mods. Lol.

I tried modding Dark Souls 2 once and broke it

That was back when my internet was much slower so downloading the game again was oh so painful... I had not even finished it. I really ought to try again with some youtube help because there is some amazing stuff out there (looking at DS3 expansion mods).

I did add mods to a game once, but there was a convenient little folder in which I just had to drag stuff and activate it in game so that doesn't count for me because that's the easy kindergarten modding style I wish every mod had

 

[Jaike]

It takes two to tango & companies have 1 obligation - make money for the share holders. If you reward them monetarily for these practices then yes, you are directly to blame. If no one purchased micro transactions when they arrived, and instead turned away from those games towards feature complete titles, do you really think we would be in the situation we are today.

Just look up oblivion horse armor, the backlash on that stopped bethsda putting micro transactions in games for YEARS (and scared the industry for along time). I believe it wasn't until WOW started making huge profits off in game transactions without the game getting slammed that it started to creep in, and then evolved into micro transaction.

If enough people boycotted wow then it would have sent another message about in game purchases, but people just started eating that up.

Claiming that making money for shareholders is companies' 1 obligation is already a lot like accepting in game purchases. It accepts a massive benefit for companies that could've been rejected. When that premiss has been accepted, don't be surprised when pharmaceutical companies act like drug lords or when insurance companies start looking like racketeers.

It's like false too. They have a legal obligation to acknowledge the authority of the state, and an ethical obligation to public interests of society, and the welfare of both. That's even assuming their country have laws that makes the claim about shareholder interest literally false. That they can influence laws or litigate laws to pieces in dysfunctional countries doesn't mean these obligations exist nowhere.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Claiming that making money for shareholders is companies' 1 obligation is already a lot like accepting in game purchases. It accepts a massive benefit for companies that could've been rejected. When that premiss has been accepted, don't be surprised when pharmaceutical companies act like drug lords or when insurance companies start looking like racketeers.

It's like false too. They have a legal obligation to acknowledge the authority of the state, and an ethical obligation to public interests of society, and the welfare of both. That's even assuming their country have laws that makes the claim about shareholder interest literally false. That they can influence laws or litigate laws to pieces in dysfunctional countries doesn't mean these obligations exist nowhere.

Are you legitimately arguing that a publicly listed company (in this instance a publicly listed games company) primary focus is not to make money? They 'acknowledge' authority of the state as you put it because they operate within a legal framework (in order to function). But to think that companies have 'an ethical obligation to public interests of society, and the welfare of both' is very, very naive.

They may ape these behaviors for PR purposes with an ultimate aim of making money (such as buy your rainbow flag skins here!), but a publicly traded company is there to make money, and all behaviors should be viewed through that lens.

 

[Jaike]

Are you legitimately arguing that a publicly listed company (in this instance a publicly listed games company) primary focus is not to make money?

No and the reverse is obviously a different position than "companies have 1 obligation - make money for the share holders". Either you're moving goalposts or conflating very different statements. Saying shareholder companies have delivering money to shareholders as their "1 obligation" isn't the same as saying that their primary focus is making money. The first is way more specific.

What I'm arguing is that companies' obligations, and that includes publicly listed companies, are shaped by social expectations, and that accepting the extreme capitalist position that their only or their overriding obligation is to shareholders is losing half the battle, and that's citizens, consumers and employees' loss. It normalises all kinds of insane exploitative crap like hooking consumers on opioids.

They 'acknowledge' authority of the state as you put it because they operate within a legal framework (in order to function). But to think that companies have 'an ethical obligation to public interests of society, and the welfare of both' is very, very naive.

How is claiming an ethical obligation very, very naive? It isn't claiming they obey it, especially without enforcement.

What's more, it can't be naive because it accurately describes social expectations in many countries. How companies behave in their home countries is contrained by society's expectations on corporate responsibility, consumer pressure like boycots, and by law or

You must be registered to see the links

if the other methods fail and there's a desire to act. And businesses as always like to fuck around more in the gray areas, but there's a positive to parliaments that can act when needed. Enforcing the same abroad has been difficult tho. It's when companies can consistently operate against the public interest and get away with that that it gets dangerous, and allowing that is actually very, very naive.

I'd say thinking capitalism works the same way elsewhere as in your country is what's very, very naive. And that your reaction serves to reinforce my point pretty well, that surrendering to their demand for shareholder interest normalises their exploitative behaviour and wins half the battle for them.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

How is claiming an ethical obligation very, very naive? It isn't claiming they obey it, especially without enforcement.

I will respond to your post as one because your ignorance of corporate structures is defeating your own argument.

Regulation (the playing field) should be the set by government. To allow companies to set their own morality is madness, a tire manufacturer should be manufacturing and selling tires, not running agendas.

These four things are very different:
Individual/sole trader
Partnership
Company (private)
Company (public) - this is what we are talking about

The laws around public entities are meant to STOP them from being a moral compass, McDonalds should NOT be taking sides. They are regulated, handed rules and forced to play within them & then they focus on trying to make money. Failure in regulation (government) is the issue you are looking at. Again take McDonalds, the ingredients list varies country to country, depending which legal framework holds them accountable for certain aspects such as hormones, chemicals, and animal cruelty. If you are angry then look at the failures in regulation.

A company is essentially a person (legally) but without being one (how do you imprison it). So the CEO is accountable (within obligations) but they are at the end of the day just working for the company. The company is a soulless, artificial construct designed to enable many people to own portions of a larger business, and this is VERY important because if you start allowing companies to dictate morals then they are no longer shackled business mechanics and they become something else (ala east India company ending up with a 200,000 strong army).

EDIT: In essence you WANT to restrict companies to being money making entities, and leave governance to governments.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Regulation (the playing field) should be the set by government. To allow companies to set their own morality is madness, a tire manufacturer should be manufacturing and selling tires, not running agendas.

Most companies are running their own agenda. It's not necessarily a political, or moral, one, but it's still an agenda. It's what define their image in the mind of the public, and the reason why a company is preferred by young peoples, another by girls, and another one by conservatives, while all are selling the same product, but project different values.

Company (private)
Company (public) - this is what we are talking about

What do you mean by "private" and "public"?
Is it "closed capital" Vs "opened capital" (listed on the stock exchange), or is it "privately owned" Vs "publicly owned" (owned by a government)?

The laws around public entities are meant to STOP them from being a moral compass, McDonalds should NOT be taking sides.

It's publicly owned companies that can't take side, while McDonalds is a privately owned company with an opened capital. Except in the USA since dumbass donald signed its stupid executive order, and outside of the strict political field (what party you support) privately owned company can take side, and most do in a way or another.
By example, Benetton slogan is, since decades, "united colors of Benetton", that is a direct stand against racism, and there's absolutely nothing illegal in that.

Again take McDonalds, the ingredients list varies country to country, depending which legal framework holds them accountable for certain aspects such as hormones, chemicals, and animal cruelty.

What have absolutely nothing to do with "making money", "agenda" and "taking side".
Plus it's not the list of ingredients that change, it's their origin. A Big Mac have the same ingredients whatever the country, but the beef used in one country will not have the same origin that the one used in another country, depending on the local regulation.
And, of course, this isn't enforced by McDonalds. Would they want it, that they wouldn't be able to use beef that can not be produced and/or imported in the country. They don't care to know if there's, by example, hormones in the beef they use, because it's their provided responsibility to not sell something illegal.

[...] and this is VERY important because if you start allowing companies to dictate morals then they are no longer shackled business mechanics and they become something else (ala east India company ending up with a 200,000 strong army).

You're confusing everything.

EDIT: In essence you WANT to restrict companies to being money making entities, and leave governance to governments.

It's absolutely not what she said.

It's just, and she's totally right in this, that making money isn't the only reason why companies exist. They try to make benefices, yes, but not all of them focus on this, not all of them place those benefice in the first place; even among the biggest ones.
The world isn't limited to the USA, and in many countries there's regulations precisely to prevent them to focus on the benefices. Loot boxes are illegal in Belgium (it's hardly enforced, but it's the law). In the EU you can't call something "cheese", or "butter", if there's no dairy. And so on. Most of the tricks used in the USA to maximize benefices are illegal outside of the USA. And same goes for the dividends, with many countries having them partly or totally regulated, with by example the obligation to distribute a part of them to the employees.

People on social networks like to joke about the "pizza party" used as incentive or rewards for the employees, but if you look closely, 99% of those who do it are from the USA. In other countries really few companies would dare to try this, because they know that it would backfire in no time.
And when I say "really few companies", I mean it. While in the USA Amazon employees try hard to get some rights, in France they have double maternity leave, and can have 7,000€ (or 9,000€ don't remember right now) to train for another job; both being above what is provided for by law. This being mostly to fight the image of soulless exploiter that the company have had for too long in the country. Same for McDonalds who, in the 90s redone all its supply chain, switching to local origin (at county level, national level, and if really they can't do otherwise close European level) in order to counter the bad image it had at those time, especially among farmers.
For both, it isn't due to an explicit pressure from the employees, but to an implicit pressure from the public. Of course, it increase the production costs, and therefore reduce the benefices; especially since you need to spend millions in advertisement to promote those changes. But lower benefices are always better that amazing benefices that decrease years after years until you loose all your customers.
And the loose is real, even when you're a big actor. McDonalds had ~75% of the market when the mess started, and they lost ~15% of their customers in just one year. [no, I'll not search references for a 30+ years old purely local situation, especially at this time. So, believe me or not, I don't care.]

 

[tanstaafl]

People on social networks like to joke about the "pizza party" used as incentive or rewards for the employees, but if you look closely, 99% of those who do it are from the USA. In other countries really few companies would dare to try this, because they know that it would backfire in no time.

Back in the 90s, even in to the 2000s the parties weren't a reward, they were just a thing companies did for everyone every once in a while. I wonder when it shifted.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

Back in the 90s, even in to the 2000s the parties weren't a reward, they were just a thing companies did for everyone every once in a while. I wonder when it shifted.

Possibly just the logistics of having more workers? At least, that's the best possible reason. The others reasons I can think of are more disheartening.

 

[tanstaafl]

Possibly just the logistics of having more workers? At least, that's the best possible reason. The others reasons I can think of are more disheartening.

I used to work for a company in the early 00s that had a regular schedule of events. There was no criteria or goals, it was just that they did things a couple times a month. They would rent out several lanes at a bowling alley or they would have a catered lunch (usually Italian food or pizza) for the whole company. There was never a "if we meet our goals" or "if we do better this quarter" it was just...a few times a months things would happen. A few times they had a catered dinner and brought in booze. One of the better jobs I had.

Edit: iirc there was over 1k employees. Enough to fill a large complex of buildings...each with their own purpose, etc.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

I used to work for a company in the early 00s that had a regular schedule of events. There was no criteria or goals, it was just that they did things a couple times a month. They would rent out several lanes at a bowling alley or they would have a catered lunch (usually Italian food or pizza) for the whole company. There was never a "if we meet our goals" or "if we do better this quarter" it was just...a few times a months things would happen. A few times they had a catered dinner and brought in booze. One of the better jobs I had.

I worked HVAC for a long time, so the boss buying dinner for everyone was pretty common on the hard days.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Back in the 90s, even in to the 2000s the parties weren't a reward, they were just a thing companies did for everyone every once in a while. I wonder when it shifted.

When pizza started to cost 5,000 bitcoins each?

More seriously, yeah, I remember the holidays party at the end of the year. A way to celebrate both Christmas and New Year between co-workers. And, depending on the employer, a party when a big contract was secured; lived only one, not sure if it's because I used to works for lame companies or greedy ones.
We still have kind of this at my current job, but it's not the same. It's our boss ordering sweets and champagne that we share in the office. Nothing like the rented reception hall with an opened buffet that it used to be.

This being said, corporate spirit faded both side. It starts to be rare than someone qualify for a 10/20/30/40 years of service medal; if even it's still a thing.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

It's our boss ordering sweets and champagne that we share in the office.

This is the most french thing you've ever said