Jump to content
Awoo.

Five Nights at Freddy's - Scott Cawthon Financially Supports Anti-LGBTQ+ Politicians


Spin Attaxx

Recommended Posts

Oh hey, an "Honest" Game Trailer for FNaF4.

And it's yet again, more fuel for the people who can't seem to comprehend that these games are just mere point-and-click games and think Scott is milking it when making these games don't take much effort for Scott.

Don't worry, I groaned for all of ya.

Best part? Them accusing Scott of milking the franchise.....and then having an ad for The Smosh movie in the credits.

 

And that's from someone who actually enjoys some of their honest trailers, especially the movie ones.

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And it's yet again, more fuel for the people who can't seem to comprehend that these games are just mere point-and-click games and think Scott is milking it when making these games don't take much effort for Scott.

Don't worry, I groaned for all of ya.

I'm not going to try and argue whether the series is being "milked" or not because frankly I don't care, but I don't really see how the games not taking much effort keeps them from being "milked". Pretty sure milked, as it's being used here, basically means taking advantage of/exploiting something for all it's worth, which doesn't really depend on a lot of effort being put into something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks well animated so far. I look forward to it.

The rarest thing just happened this week; Scott posted a photo of himself, which is now his Twitter icon.

Scott Cawthon

Finally, we now have a clearer image of the appropriate face to imagine belonging to the phone guy and something to hush those who believe the bearded fellow on Linkedin is the same guy on FNAF Scott's Hope Animation bio image.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really does seem to be the face I imagined him having. Making something that brings horror to thousands of people, milking a franchise for all it's worth. That face sums up every feeling I expect a person to be getting from that.                                          (myself not included)

Edited by Shaddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a nice guy to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the phone guy's peppy vocal facade in the training tapes is just Cawthon's natural speaking voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see Gil's keeping the tradition of preview teasers that hint at great things before the big event alive.

now learn 2 darken images so it can be even more complete

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way that "curtain" isn't going to end up crushing someone's hand before all is over.

Or hell, maybe they're just going to treat it like the Bite of '87 and casually mention it offhand as something that already happened before the movie's events, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the official FNAF fanpage on Facebook chimed in on the subject of Foxy plush scalping; currently the plushes are selling for $300.

 

The Page is doing its best to try and rein in the problem, saying it would ban any promoters, but that's a slap on the wrist.

 

Scott can't do a damned thing about it, because he licensed the goods to Sanshee and under first sale doctrine, you are free to do as you please with licensed physical goods you bought. eBay won't do a thing about it, because A. it's not against their policies to scalp and B. it never will be, because they make a shit ton of money off inflated prices thanks to fees.

 

As for Sanshee doing a thing about it... consider their "only 4 per person!" limit. Seems like a legit limit to prevent scalping. Many of the geniuses who are commenting on the Page are suggesting 1) Sanshee raise the price or 2) limit the number to 1.

 

1 is self-defeating. To fight against price raises... you raise the price. So long as these are limited run, it will always be lucrative for scalpers to grab as many as they can. If the plushes are selling for $300, the only way Sanshee can kill scalping is raising the price just below that threshold. Who the hell wants that?

 

2 is well-intentioned, but has a flawed premise. You see, it assumes scalpers are idiots who don't know how to bypass your cute restrictions. It is no problem at all to find volunteers or even pay hired help to grab the plushes as straw buyers and then send them to you. Sure, it's an extra leg in the chain, but we're talking $200 profits here. It's worth it.

 

And the best part? 2 will actually raise scalped prices FURTHER. A limit of 1 makes it harder for smaller scalpers to get in on the business, which in turn means there will be less competition among scalpers... and they can raise the price higher as a result. If Sanshee really wants to beat scalping... they will mass produce these things in a manner only the extremely rich could hope to scalp it. But that requires such an abundance of supply it is no longer profitable for Sanshee.

 

The scalper is often demonized. I think this is faulty logic: they are ordinary people making a living just like you and me. To demonize the scalper is to romanticize consumerism. Why are your financial interests superior to theirs? I could go on and on on this topic, but I'll avoid that and move onto the crux of the debate:

 

The real person you blame is the customer. It is the people who will pay hundreds of dollars for a damned plush doll that give scalpers incentive to do it.

 

Of course, one could argue that scalpers are a benefit to the market in that they get products into the hands of those who put the most value on items (rather than those who are the first to click a button), but that's a debate for another topic.

 

In short: the FNAF fanbase is in an outrage, which I find hard to take seriously when many of them fail basic logic and law.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scalping items that are both already on retail for mainstream purchase (meaning it's not perfectly analogous to general retail) and also limited in availability corners the market to only the rich and those in-the-know, which ultimately does nothing but to arbitrarily limit choice, restrict competition, and thus isn't actually good for most consumers. Good for the business of course, but I feel enshrining the good of the business over the good of the collective is simply wrong, and makes the potential implications of your question "Why does your financial business take precedence over a scalper's?" pretty uncomfortable. Even if it's an emotional appeal, I feel there's value in saying it's more important or a better good for a child to receive a Foxy plush for their birthday than for some already-comfortable 20-year old trying to get rich quick by simply taking away the parents' ability to reasonably afford said Foxy plush. And before you say there's someone out there who- for some reason- got themselves into a situation where he needs to scalp Foxy plushies to actually live (in which case your question can be reversed onto them and I ask why should we care about that), I already find that the scalper can't really spend money he doesn't have blowing half a paycheck on 20 dolls if he didn't already have some kind of fallback, so I find it hard to empathize with them. Now if there were other avenues to attain FNaF plushie merchandise, then fine, create a market I guess if you can. But in this case there isn't.

You also can't reasonably determine who will value what based upon how much they spend on it or how quickly they obtain it because, despite what capitalism drills into us, human behavior towards objects isn't actually directly determined by their monetary value. For example, I take precious care of a costume I made for around $400, basically bathing it after every use, while my brother with a much better costume valued at $3000 doesn't brush and wash it as often as I do.

Edited by Nepenthe
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before you say there's someone out there who- for some reason- got themselves into a situation where he needs to scalp Foxy plushies to actually live (in which case your question can be reversed onto them and I ask why should we care about that)

That's exactly my point, though.

 

Scalping is a Law of the Jungle scenario, where everyone decides their interests are supreme and makes claims to a moral high ground. There is no moral high ground. There is only economics.

 

Though that's any economic relationship. Consumers want to buy for as cheap as possible, sellers want to sell for as much as possible. When an item doesn't sell, the seller gradually lowers the price until sales pick up. Market equilibrium is awesome.

 

And that's why the real culprit are the people who buy scalped items in the first place. They establish there's demand for these plushes.

For example, I take precious care of a costume I made for around $400, basically bathing it after every use, while my brother with a much better costume valued at $3000 doesn't brush and wash it as often as I do.

I would argue that's a case of him being spoiled. :P

 

You say it's hard to empathize with the scalper. I find it hard to empathize with the person who doesn't think "FNAF is pretty popular, I should probably buy one before they're gone."

 

Case in point: I was going to grab a Freddy plush. I dilly dally'd on it, and now they're all gone. Some of that is probably due to scalpers... but I don't fault them. I wasn't quick enough; it's my fault.

 

Though I'd also fault Sanshee, because contrary to their "we hate scalpers, gaiz!" mantra, they sure make it easy as hell to do it.

 

I dunno, I come from a different world than most. As a business owner, I don't see a problem in profit unless it's causing some sort of real harm to someone. I can't construe access to or denial of material posssessions as that, as my family and myself spent much of our lives in near-poverty and we learned to appreciate each other more than gifts. Though ultimately, these are plushes, not blood diamonds.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply think it's faulty to ascribe amorality to economics that falls within the law. That's not how we govern literally any other aspect of our lives and there's no logical argument for excluding economics or profit-making from these kinds of moral considerations, especially when it comes with trying to act like capitalism- this system we all live in generally without option and which affects us all in a multitude of life-altering ways like any other sociological concept- isn't already inherently exploitative of your fellow man in the first place. Selfishness to an excessive benefit of only yourself is not a desirable trait, nor is greed and apathy, and they never will be just because the law has to reasonably allow them in certain situations to prevent outright totalitarianism.

And this isn't at all a critique of the concept of profit. It's a critique of the idea that there are absolutely no degrees of disgust when it comes to the amount of profit being made and the way it's being made outside of "is it illegal or not?" No one is going to fault a person for growing or shipping produce for selling them at a profit if it's reasonably affordable and people have choices in the type and brand of produce they're able to receive. But if every motherfucker starts changing the dynamics of the market so much that most median consumers either have the choice between going broke or going hungry, and there's no law against this, they still have a right to be pissed.

In short, capitalism isn't excluded from moral and ethical considerations just because people merely say so. The Law of the Jungle mantra assumes people participating are totally cut off from civilized society and thus return to an animalistic state out of necessity. This is nonsense. The way markets are created and move and the way money flows literally affects everyone from an international scale all the way down to an individual one, and pretending that isn't true is never going to win scalpers any favors. You're not some stupid lion on the plains, you're a citizen of a country who is, in some way big or small, affecting the way money flows and thus the way the people of that country live. Capitalism is ultimately a necessary evil, and if you're a participating scalper in the magnitude of the FNaF plushie or the Amiibo situation, then trying to put yourself on a pedestal that demands no judgement is going to do nothing but invite the very judgement you seek to push on everyone else but yourself. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all in favor of changing the capitalist system to avoid these sorts of situations, but until they do change, I am open to playing within the rules. Consider digital goods: there's really no reason they can't be free in an ideal scenario. But the people who make them have their own needs and are deserving of compensation, so it is a necessary evil under present conditions to put a price tag on what costs virtually nothing to replicate.

 

I cannot fault the scalper because I do not know their motivations. Perhaps they are just greedy. Or perhaps they have bills to pay. Or perhaps they are swept up in the same consumerist culture that the people they sell the scalped items are. Barely anyone is content with just the basic needs. This guy wants a widescreen TV... this one wants a plush doll... the scalper spots a way that both parties can be satisfied.

 

The real person to blame is Sanshee for making so few of them. Does anyone scalp food or extension cords? Generally no, because there's so many there's no way for it to be lucrative. Sanshee creates only a handful of plushes when there are millions of fans. I've seen their sales margins and I know they're not exactly poor (though I do question their competence for a variety of reasons). They really have no excuse to make so few when they're constantly bogged down with requests for and sales of FNAF merchandise. What scalpers really do is create market equilibrium: they push the price to a point that any higher and nothing will sell, when the original seller did not. This is the result of demand outstripping supply by a drastic margin. The real cure to scalping isn't any sort of rigid ethics, but basic economic sense: if an item is going to sell like hotcakes, produce a ton of them. These guys can't play dumb and say "we didn't know they'd sell so fast!" when it's pretty obvious FNAF fans as a whole are psychotic in their merchandise ways.

 

I will be honest. I had considered scalping some of the Freddy plushes myself (in the end I turned out not doing it). "Ogilvie you're a bastard!" Not really. My mother has medical bills that are crippling her. My father's business is falling apart. My sister and I can barely pay our tuition. When it comes between me and my family's needs and the desire of a fan to own a piece of merchandise, I will choose me. Every time. The same way I have denied countless people cheap merchandise no matter how true their stories of an ailment affecting their child were; of course I felt sympathy, but sympathy does not pay the bills. There is nothing more going on with scalping than two groups of people's financial interests competing with each other. There is no good or evil here, only victory and defeat.

 

I understand your point but I really can't accept it in this case. This isn't education, medical services, food, or fuel. They're plushes. Toys with no purpose other than emotional gratification. When the government sees fit to address my needs... I will see fit to address everyone else's wants. Until then, I have to look out for myself. The same way every other person in society does.

 

...Funny how plushes of indie horror characters can lead to in depth political and socioeconomic discussion, though. XD

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all participate in capitalism and are thus responsible for its ills, whether that's directly or by several degrees of separation that make these conversations inconvenient or useless. My point is that no one really gets to say they are completely innocent of any wrongdoing even when they participate in the game (just ask that 90-year old former SS officer who was recently convicted of war crimes despite the judge and jury actually believing his claims of ignorance), and subsequently certain actions within the game are going to be frowned upon more than others because human beings are emotional and social creatures, not ones who base our lives around straight economics and numbers games, and thus we are never going to take lightly to people gaming systems that benefit the fewest amount of people. And really, we can make up stories for the scalpers all day in either direction, and certain people- like yourself- will gain the benefit of the doubt, but the burden is ultimately upon scalpers to produce a sob story that makes the taking away of choice easier to swallow. If a white dude is going around wearing pointy white sheets, I'm fair to assume he's a KKK member and not- as he was intending- a huge-ass fan of ghost cosplaying. So you can play the game whether that's out of necessity or not, but the thing is you simply don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Economics will always exist within the confines of our society because it is defined by humans existing within that society, so trying to claim that morals don't matter as much is the wrong way to go about it. The right way, instead, would be to find moral justification for your actions.

Edited by Nepenthe
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologizes in advance for double post, but here's something.

Scott's posted a update in the FNAF4 community on what to expect from the Halloween update. It's a game update, not DLC and it'll add a cheat menu, a challenge menu (meaning that the 20/20/20/20 sliders are probably coming back) and "a twist on a familiar minigame that provides a boost when playing challenge modes." He also mentions that a new game is in the works (not FNAF5) and depending on time, there's either gonna be a small playable portion of that come Oct 31st or some sneak-peek content instead.

What's more interesting is what he mentions WON'T be in the update, and that's the box.

Now I want to talk about what WON'T be included... the box.

You know, when I released the first game over a year ago, I was amazed at how quickly everyone found every bit of lore and story. Then the same happened with part 2, fans and youtubers dug in and found everything. Game Theory did an incredible video on part 2; getting almost everything right. Then part 3 came out, and once again the story was uncovered by the community. It seemed that there was nothing I could hide!

But then I released part 4, and somehow.... no one, not a single person, found the pieces. The story remains completely hidden. I guess most people assumed that I filled the game with random easter eggs this time. I didn't. What's in the box? It's the pieces put together. But the bigger question is- would the community accept it that way? The fact that the pieces have remained elusive this time strikes me as incredible, and special, a fitting conclusion in some ways, and because of that, I've decided that maybe some things are best left forgotten, forever.

Huh. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so he's not going to reveal what's in the box because we didn't find every single thing in the game? And the DLC isn't gameplay content but rather some updates and menus?

WTF_blackmen_zpsnal8p943.gif

I invested a year of my life into this shit, Scott.

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my understanding is that he meant the means of opening the box is already in the game - just nobody's discovered how yet, to his great surprise. o_o

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wooooooooow

 

God damn, that is literally the lamest excuse ever! "Oh you guys should had looked harder so too bad, I won't give you the anwsers". If you revealed what's in the box, we would, idunno, have a easier time figuring stuff out? Like I don't really follow the story of fnaf that much but man, what a "fuck you" to the fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my understanding is that he meant the means of opening the box is already in the game - just nobody's discovered how yet, to his great surprise. o_o

He said there's no easter eggs though, so there's nothing that's been completely hidden like 3's Birthday mini games. He also says that what is in the box is simply the logical conclusion of the story of 4. And considering the files have probably been mined for things like the renders and sound effects, I'm betting that the box is physically impossible to open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me more like he's implying that the dating debate can absolutely be solved; that if we were simply better at finding clues, interpreting them, synthesising them, we would not need the box to open.  We'd already know what was inside.

Might be worth thinking about what sort of thing would fit in there.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me more like he's implying that the dating debate can absolutely be solved; that if we were simply better at finding clues, interpreting them, synthesising them, we would not need the box to open.  We'd already know what was inside.

Might be worth thinking about what sort of thing would fit in there.

yeah that's what i'm thinking he ment but chances are a good chunk of fnaf fans will take it the wrong way  due to how he worded it. that said I find it interesting to know that the chunks of the story from the first 3 games have been uncovered "and by that I mean he's finally confirmed that some  of the theory's from the last games are correct"

and that fnaf 4 is the only one that no ones gotten right so far "or at least anyone that's made their theory known anyways"

Edited by kirby1up
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.