What is a "win" to you?

Just because someone isn't trying to win doesn't mean that they have won when they succeed. At best you could say that they won at some other game that is not dead by daylight despite having identical mechanics. Since the wincon is so integral to how a game plays out, making up a new wincon and playing with that new one in mind is effectively the same as just playing a different game entirely.

That's why in a game like Throne of lies, 2 different roles with comparable ability's but different win conditions require entirely different balance standards, strategies, counter play, specific interaction outcomes, ect. even despite being mechanically identical to each other in terms of their core ability.

The point is that the question of "What is the win condition for dead by daylight" is NOT a subjective question.

Even when the game has no stated win condition like minecraft for example the question is still objective. In fact I already said the answer: None.

For minecraft the answer is "you can't win"

For League of legands the answer is "Destroy the enemy base

For Counter Strike it's "eliminate the enemy team or detonate/disarm the bomb/run out the time"

For magic the gathering it's "reduce your opponents life total to 0"

No matter what you personally are trying to accomplish when you play these games, your win condition remains constant. You might succeed at a goal, but that doesn't mean you succeeded at THE Goal.

You might be able to argue that the wincon is ambiguous or even non-existent. But it still ISN'T subjective. Because that's just not how win conditions work, and trying to apply any line of reasoning that says otherwise to any game which is more clear about it shows this.

If my own personal objective in a game of overwatch is to eliminate the most roadsigns in a payload match while I'm on defence and I do so, but then the payload gets to the end, then did I win the payload match? No of course not. I may have won at the "roadsign hunting contest" but that's just irrelevant, no one else was competing for it and it would be ridiculous to try and make changes to the game because someone was far better than someone else at it.

So if I'm a survivor and I'm trying to win in a trial of dead by daylight, that means I must escape. If I do not escape then whatever it is I won at was NOT dead by daylight.

4 BBQ stacks with 20k+ bloodpoints

Calm down it's a joke

Just because the game isn't hardcore doesn't mean it isn't competitive.

My line of reasoning applies to Mario kart and Wii tennis too. Both of those games still have just as much of a fixed win condition as football does.

Or tag, or Hearts, or solitaire ect.

Unfortunately, you can point out what an official win is (and yes you are correct) until you are blue in the face, You cannot however, force people to care.

There is no 'correct' answer to a question that is purely subjective, no matter how many times you may wish to make it so.

We get it. A 'real' win is what we get when we meet the parameters displayed. However, people will always set their own goals in a game and thus we have what makes it a 'win' (perhaps a secondary win if that makes you feel any better) for THEM, not the game.

Yeah its 4 sacrifices specifically.

Moris, bleedouts ect don't count.

I'm just surprised that many people are conflating 'personal achievements' with 'winning the game.' Sure, go ahead and set personal objectives for yourself that are completely separate from the game's actual winning conditions. If you accomplish them, great, be proud of yourself. Nothing is stopping you (nor should it.) But I simply don't see how that's any relevant to the question of whether you won at the actual game.

Same goes for whether you had fun in the game. I've had plenty of experiences of losing in games, but having lots of fun. I've also had experiences of winning in games, but not enjoying the victories very much. The results of whether I won/lost have never been dependent on whether I was having fun or not, but instead of whether I had fulfilled the winning conditions provided by the game.

I can sort of understand the statement, "I won, therefore I had fun" if you are that type of human being (although I personally feel like that person is probably missing out on a lot of whatever that game is offering.)  But "I had fun, therefore I won the game," doesn't make any sense to me. It would take a lot of mental gymnastics to even convince myself that this is true. Perhaps it's the generation gap, in which the younger generations are forced to always feel like they have to be winners. Or perhaps it's cultural differences in which 'losing' is associated so much with 'being weak' that it isn't tolerated in that part of the world. But people's attachment to 'winning' here seems, to me, obsessive to an unhealthy degree, and hopefully one day they realize that there is nothing wrong with losing. Ultimately, you don't even really have to care about winning or losing - if you want to play for fun - then just play for fun. But also realize that it has nothing to do with the winning condition.

@FrenziedRoach I think they're worried the game will be balanced around "unofficial win conditions" like having a good game, getting 4 BBQ stacks or whatever instead of what the game itself presents as wins (be it 4k/escape or pip, either makes sense in that regard as a true win condition depending on how you look at it)

I mean I get where they're coming from considering the "controversy" with killers designed to be interesting instead of viable but it's not like this thread is an official feedback thread, it's just people saying what makes them personally feel satisfied with a match.