Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure

Sticky

New member
May 14, 2013
130
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Sticky said:
Nothing if you've grown to enjoy the industry turning you upside-down and trying to shake loose your money.
I haven't had any game publishers forcibly take my money. All the money I've spent on games has been a voluntary purchase. It would be an outrageous story if publishers were actually physically assaulting people for money, but I don't see any evidence of that.

Since when did "outrageous" mean "something you don't like"? That's as bad as the storm-in-a-teacup outrage over things like this image. "Help, help! I'm being oppressed because a company is selling a product that isn't exactly to my liking!"
So when you typed out this post, did you genuinely believe that you could pretend that the concept of a figure of speech was completely lost on you? Like you somehow genuinely believe that I was referring to Ubisoft hit-squads going out and turning people upside down to shake loose their money?

Even if you could fool anyone into believing that you are that obtuse, you could at least understand contextually that I was referring to the disgusting practice of specifically designing releases of the game to be incomplete so DLC could be sold at a future date?

Or were you instead hoping that I would focus on that instead of your pretty obvious dodge of the actual question at hand: do you genuinely believe that there is nothing wrong with Ubisoft chopping games into pieces before it is even released and selling multiple versions/multiple incomplete versions specifically to nickle and dime you ("nickle and dime" being a figure of speech, not actually showering people with nickles and dimes)? Jim made a pretty lengthy video last week that goes into all the reasons why you are wrong and are being complicit in the art of industry shakedown (shakedown also being a figure of speech).
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
Sorry Jim, I can't fault ubisoft here, much as it pains me to say that.

They say don't judge a book by it's cover, yet that's what people did: they saw the cover and it was an inkblot test as to what people saw. The stupidity in reading much of anything about a game's content by its boxart aside(seriously, is it every a good indication) those that saw racism went right to the net to complain about it (because it had been nearly a week since the last controversy) without stopping to think what the image might mean other than what their first thought was. Bad enough normal people do this, but when it comes from "the press" or whatever gaming has, well, so much of me hopes it's just clickbaiting. Otherwise it means we have "journalists" that don't understand the job well enough to know they are supposed to find out the "whys" behind the story, not insert their own thoughts.

That's the thing, unless someone told you differently, it's possible that the folks at ubisoft really did think that people wouldn't see the worst in them this time, and when proven wrong, wanted to make sure their explanation wouldn't be misconstrued (like Nintendo's was). Ubi could have provided more context, but it shouldn't have had to, and only does so because someone might have gotten the wrong idea. We need to calm down, take a breath, and realize our immeidate interpretation of the context might be wrong, short sighted, and biased on our own beliefs and issues.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Sticky said:
So when you typed out this post, did you genuinely believe that you could pretend that the concept of a figure of speech was completely lost on you? Like you somehow genuinely believe that I was referring to Ubisoft hit-squads going out and turning people upside down to shake loose their money?
No, I understand that you were being metaphorical. I just don't see how the metaphor fits, as you are completely free not to buy the game or the DLC. Where is the compulsion?

Sticky said:
Even if you could fool anyone into believing that you are that obtuse, you could at least understand contextually that I was referring to the disgusting practice of specifically designing releases of the game to be incomplete so DLC could be sold at a future date?
What's so disgusting about it?

Sticky said:
do you genuinely believe that there is nothing wrong with Ubisoft chopping games into pieces before it is even released and selling multiple versions/multiple incomplete versions specifically to nickle and dime you
I do believe that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and if that's how they want to run their business, then that's perfectly valid. I do think you are exaggerating more than a little though, with "chopping the game into pieces" - you still get a pretty much complete game without buying any DLC.

If you don't like it, then don't buy it! It's really simple. Getting all hyperbolic about it isn't going to achieve anything, and it wastes rhetoric that could be spent on more deserving targets.

The irony is, that if the game were to be released as-is without any DLC being available, most people probably wouldn't notice the missing DLC anyway. So, is it better to have the option to buy the additional content, or not to have it at all?

Sticky said:
Jim made a pretty lengthy video last week that goes into all the reasons why you are wrong and are being complicit in the art of industry shakedown (shakedown also being a figure of speech).
Oh, I'm wrong am I? I didn't know there was an objective truth to this - we're just talking opinions here - aside from the objective fact that you aren't being forced to buy the game, which I am correct about.

Maybe you can tell me what it is I'm supposedly objectively wrong about? And how am I being complicit in anything? What am I supposed to do - tear down society and replace the gaming industry with a socialist one that is run "by the people" and games are only allowed to be released under certain criteria?
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
JoJo said:
Bocaj2000 said:
That was seen as a white man and a local? I just saw a pompous villain and his goon. Their ethnicities are vague and kinda muddy, so I didn't really have any assumptions. It wasn't until I saw this video that I was aware of the controversy nor the context of it.
Same, if anything I thought people might complain about the campiness of the villain and possible gay-codedness, not the ethnicities. People will seem to look for hidden meanings and 'subtext' in anything, apparently.

Unrelated but I can't honestly see how the villain in the pink suit isn't white though, he looks exactly like a muscular Scandinavian. Maybe they're using that crazy definition where a tiny smidgen of non-European blood makes you non-white for some reason. At a stroke he could be half-Asian I guess.
There are many people who "look white" but aren't, especially in Asian countries where plastic surgery is relatively common, but also plenty of people with "obviously" black parents.

Only racists would assume you can tell someone's race immediately, at all times, by their physical characteristics.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
There are many people who "look white" but aren't, especially in Asian countries where plastic surgery is relatively common, but also plenty of people with "obviously" black parents.
I'll ask again: why can't someone be both Asian and white? If you can be Asian and black, then why not Asian and white? Why is it that "white" is being used as specific to certain "races" and nationalities, while "black" is used as a general descriptor of skin tone?

"Black" isn't a race, and "white" isn't either.

Even more importantly, the very concept of race has largely been debunked and discarded in scientific circles.
 

Sticky

New member
May 14, 2013
130
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
What's so disgusting about it?

I do believe that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and if that's how they want to run their business, then that's perfectly valid. I do think you are exaggerating more than a little though, with "chopping the game into pieces" - you still get a pretty much complete game without buying any DLC.

Oh, I'm wrong am I? I didn't know there was an objective truth to this - we're just talking opinions here - aside from the objective fact that you aren't being forced to buy the game, which I am correct about.

Maybe you can tell me what it is I'm supposedly objectively wrong about? And how am I being complicit in anything? What am I supposed to do - tear down society and replace the gaming industry with a socialist one that is run "by the people" and games are only allowed to be released under certain criteria?
Yes, if you believe that this practice is not harmful to consumers and the industry, then you are indeed wrong. Objectively wrong even.

I don't even need to go in-depth as to why because Jim has this weekly show, maybe you've heard of it, that has many times touched upon the subject and explained why it is terrible to hold that opinion of the industry. As it is giving them a free pass to make any toxic business decision they desire with your complacency being the fuel that drives it.

And I can hear what your next post might be: "Oh but I don't buy those games, I don't support them"

Good, then don't go on public internet forums and express your complacency with it and expect to not have people jump down your throat when you express your willing acceptance of poor industry practice. You, I'm assuming person who plays and buys video games, have a stake in Ubisoft furthering a poor business practice whether you buy their games or not. Therefore it is perfectly rational to be outraged when they continue to ream their consumer base even if you are not their customer at the moment. Maybe you're not interested in this game, but there may come a time where they release a game that you're interested in, and it would be far too late to ask them to stop these shoddy business practices.

In fact, I don't even see why you would feel compelled to defend them if you genuinely didn't care about it. Suddenly you decided to jump in and start defending them on the basis that it's their company and they can do whatever they want, yet seem unwilling to actually argue the merits of what they are doing because you don't care enough about the argument. Especially when you do it in the course of a single quote tree that seems to be written by two different people when I remove my quotations from it and display only your side of it. Oh how the hypocrisy is thick.
 

Snooder

New member
May 12, 2008
77
0
0
Vault101 said:
now of coarse we don't KNOW this guy is gay, and we don't know how he will act, we can only speculate based on the previous Far Cry game and his general apearance that he will be larger than life and/or flamboyant, but I digress

weather or not he's "actually" or implied gay is beside the point (unless its outright stated he isn't...to be subversive, but I don't put that much stock in Ubisoft), I may mess up terms here but he is "coded" gay
No, he isn't. Like not even close. He's "coded" to conform to the stereotype of flamboyant and flashy Yakuza/Triad gangsters predominant in martial arts films.

This is like the "he's white." You have no evidence of it, and common sense would dictate that a setting set in the South East Asia would feature an asian gangster villain. And he looks like a pretty much stereotypical example of that. But somehow "Blonde Jet Li with the wardrobe of that guy in Ichi the killer" gets turned into "gay white guy." C'mon people.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Sticky said:
Yes, if you believe that this practice is not harmful to consumers and the industry, then you are indeed wrong. Objectively wrong even.
I don't see any evidence of it. How have consumers and the industry been harmed?

Sticky said:
I don't even need to go in-depth as to why because Jim has this weekly show, maybe you've heard of it, that has many times touched upon the subject and explained why it is terrible to hold that opinion of the industry. As it is giving them a free pass to make any toxic business decision they desire with your complacency being the fuel that drives it.
Jim is often wrong, especially about this topic.

Also, when did I give anyone a "free pass"?

Sticky said:
Good, then don't go on public internet forums and express your complacency with it and expect to not have people jump down your throat when you express your willing acceptance of common industry practice.
I absolutely do not expect that on any civilised forum. There is no reason for anybody to be jumping down another's throat because of a difference of opinion. And what am I supposed to do in "not accepting it," anyway? Am I supposed to pretend it doesn't exist? Or is the only acceptable opinion to be outraged and say ridiculous things like it's "disgusting" or "outrageous"?

Sticky said:
You, I'm assuming person who plays and buys video games, have a stake in Ubisoft furthering a poor business practice whether you buy their games or not.
I don't see that there's anything wrong with the practice. It hasn't been something that has hurt me or affected my enjoyment of games. If we got to the stage where games are literally being chopped up and crippled to make DLC, then it probably would start impacting my enjoyment. But I haven't bought any games like that yet.

And yes, I am interested in both Watch Dogs and Far Cry 4 - not interested enough to pre-order or rush out and buy on release day, but I'll probably buy them within a month of release, playing time permitting. As for the DLC - I most likely won't buy it, but possibly will if it looks good.

Sticky said:
Therefore it is perfectly rational to be outraged when they continue to ream their consumer base even if you are not their customer at the moment.
No, it's never rational to be outraged about video games. They are just video games - we aren't talking about starvation or child exploitation. There's nothing in this topic that rises to a level that would warrant outrage or disgust. That is simply not rational, and if you are having that reaction to the games industry, then it might be a good idea to stop gaming, for your own health and stress levels.

Sticky said:
In fact, I don't even see why you would feel compelled to defend them if you genuinely didn't care about it. Suddenly you decided to jump in and start defending them on the basis that it's their company and they can do whatever they want, yet seem unwilling to actually argue the merits of what they are doing because you don't care enough about the argument.
I'm more bothered by the damage that people are doing to the English language by using words as strong as "disgusting" and "outrageous" for something that's so trivial and unimportant. Words have meaning, don't throw them around like that! That was my main objection, it wasn't so much about the DLC topic, but about the method of expression.

Sticky said:
Especially when you do it in the course of a single quote tree that seems to be written by two different people when I remove my quotations from it and display only your side of it. Oh how the hypocrisy is thick.
Huh?
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
RvLeshrac said:
There are many people who "look white" but aren't, especially in Asian countries where plastic surgery is relatively common, but also plenty of people with "obviously" black parents.
I'll ask again: why can't someone be both Asian and white? If you can be Asian and black, then why not Asian and white? Why is it that "white" is being used as specific to certain "races" and nationalities, while "black" is used as a general descriptor of skin tone?

"Black" isn't a race, and "white" isn't either.

Even more importantly, the very concept of race has largely been debunked and discarded in scientific circles.
"white" is shorthand for "Western-European." "Black" is shorthand for "African"

And no, race has not "largely been debunked and discarded in scientific circles." Your race is vitally important in determining your chance of being afflicted with certain specific medical conditions, including your susceptibility to various forms of cancer, more-so when a detailed family medical history is unavailable.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Snooder said:
No, he isn't. Like not even close. He's "coded" to conform to the stereotype of flamboyant and flashy Yakuza/Triad gangsters predominant in martial arts films.
.
hmmm....and japan does have different standars/ideas about being effeminate...so that is a fair point
 

Sticky

New member
May 14, 2013
130
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
I don't see any evidence of it. How have consumers and the industry been harmed?
Aardvaarkman said:
Jim is often wrong, especially about this topic.
By the shoddy day-1 DLC business practice? You need to look no further than a few years ago when Capcom putting Day 1 DLC on the MVC3 disc was viewed as the worst thing to ever happen to video games, now being viewed as the industry practice as usual. So if you were not being sarcastic, I would have to ask you to research this topic further.

You say Jim is 'usually' wrong on this topic (your opinion, yes?) but he's actually right about this topic more often than not, and has supported it with good research on the industry and evidence that it is destructive and harmful. You on the other hand have made a post on the internet saying that you're unable to see the damage for whatever reason. I'm more inclined to believe Jim on this issue.

You admit that it's happening yet don't see how it has affected the industry? I'm confused if you're intentionally ignoring the problem or not. And if you are intentionally ignoring the problem, then I don't see why you have any stake in this argument or conversation.

Aardvaarkman said:
No, it's never rational to be outraged about video games. They are just video games - we aren't talking about starvation or child exploitation. There's nothing in this topic that rises to a level that would warrant outrage or disgust. That is simply not rational, and if you are having that reaction to the games industry, then it might be a good idea to stop gaming, for your own health and stress levels.
And then we get into THIS argument. Every thread we have to have this discussion by someone who I can only assume lives in a convent or a monastery spending their time tending to the poor and starved orphans in Africa so they can play the "I'm too busy worrying about the world's problems to discuss video games!" card on a video game forum. Since you probably don't do these things, I can't actually imagine why you bring up that you're too focused on the world and it's problems while simultaneously spending your time posting about video games on the video game forum.

Fortunately, last thread even, I discussed in-depth why trying to use the starving children as a shield for your internet argument is selfish and hypocritical to an almost absurd degree. I'll just repost that now.

Sticky said:
Every thread

Every one of these threads pointing out the most minute problem with anything results in a post just like this.

"The whole world is suffering while we're having problems with our video games!"

Do you feel this added to the conversation? Did you feel people really didn't know about this before you came and enlightened our lives with your wisdom? Do you feel that pointing this out has somehow helped solve the problem in any way? I'm not asking this to be snarky or to be rude, but there has to be a reason you felt to come and post about what is otherwise a completely unsolvable problem on our ends.

You see, the reason we talk about industry woes is that is a problem we can actually solve, we can solve Ubisoft being greedy cunts or EA being rude dicks by not giving them our money. It is US that is the reason THESE companies are able to continue with the practices they spew onto the industry. When we stop giving them money, they get a clear message (at least that's how it should work in theory).

The only way to solve the world's problems is to tell other people how to live at gunpoint, and I doubt you would feel THAT is ethical. So since the only way to fix it is completely unethical and unworkable, we should focus on the problems we can fix, no?

Aardvaarkman said:
I'm more bothered by the damage that people are doing to the English language by using words as strong as "disgusting" and "outrageous" for something that's so trivial and unimportant. Words have meaning, don't throw them around like that! That was my main objection, it wasn't so much about the DLC topic, but about the method of expression.
So you're arguing semantics instead of trying to defend an argument that you decided to bring up. Are we done here? I feel there isn't much of anything you can say at this point to paint yourself as someone who cares enough about the industry to actually say anything rational regarding it.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
"white" is shorthand for "Western-European." "Black" is shorthand for "African"
Go tell an Australian Aborigine that. Or a Samoan, or some South Asian people. The fact is that "black" is used by many racial groups to describe themselves. If people mean "Western European" or "African" - then maybe they should say that? Not all Western Europeans or Africans have white or black skin respectively, either.

RvLeshrac said:
And no, race has not "largely been debunked and discarded in scientific circles." Your race is vitally important in determining your chance of being afflicted with certain specific medical conditions, including your susceptibility to various forms of cancer, more-so when a detailed family medical history is unavailable.
That's using the word "race" as a proxy for genetic traits. It's not actually your "race" that is causing those medical conditions, it's genetic traits shared by certain groups of people.

From Wikipedia:

"Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[11] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[6] or simplistic way,[12] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[13][14]"
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
I have trouble putting the blame on Ubisoft for this. Their stupid amount preorder bonuses and the DLC extravaganza that will no doubt follow which has managed to bat me away from buying games on launch day since like 2010 is still their fault and something I care much more about than me being reassured of their regard for the plight of the Nepalese... guerrilla rebel? But people rushing to judge cover art as racist is not their fault IMO in this case. But I still won't buy this game at launch because of the first reason not the second, even if they came out today waving a rainbow flag singing its a small world.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Sticky said:
By the shoddy day-1 DLC business practice? You need to look no further than a few years ago when Capcom putting Day 1 DLC on the MVC3 disc was viewed as the worst thing to ever happen to video games, now being viewed as the industry practice as usual. So if you were not being sarcastic, I would have to ask you to research this topic further.
That just proves my point about how alarmist commentators on video games are.

Sticky said:
You say Jim is 'usually' wrong on this topic (your opinion, yes?) but he's actually right about this topic more often than not, and has supported it with good research on the industry and evidence that it is destructive and harmful. You on the other hand have made a post on the internet saying that you're unable to see the damage for whatever reason. I'm more inclined to believe Jim on this issue.
No, I said he was "often" wrong. That's not the same as "usually." And while he's usually right about the facts of the matter, I would call his reactions to and conclusions reached from those facts overly alarmist and sensationalistic.

Again, I'd like to see the harm done. Who has been harmed? Has anybody been misled, or purchased a product they didn't want to because of DLC? Has anybody been injured? Has DLC caused anybody's game consoles to break?

Sticky said:
You admit that it's happening yet don't see how it has affected the industry? I'm confused if you're intentionally ignoring the problem or not. And if you are intentionally ignoring the problem, then I don't see why you have any stake in this argument or conversation.
Maybe you could point out a problem that I am ignoring. The way I see it: Industry sells games with DLC. people buy DLC. Industry releases more games with DLC. People continue to buy.

Seems like everything is working fine. If it was harming the industry, then the industry would probably stop doing it. If it was harming consumers, then they would probably stop buying. That's how a market works. Now, if people are continuing to buy products that are harming them, then I suppose there's something masochistic or irrational about that customer. But I think it's overly presumptuous to assume that people aren't capable of making their own purchasing decisions. Just because somebody buys something you don't like, doesn't mean they are being harmed.

Sticky said:
And then we get into THIS argument. Every thread we have to have this discussion by someone who I can only assume lives in a convent or a monastery spending their time tending to the poor and starved orphans in Africa so they can play the "I'm too busy worrying about the world's problems to discuss video games!" card on a video game forum. Since you probably don't do these things, I can't actually imagine why you bring up that you're too focused on the world and it's problems while simultaneously spending your time posting about video games on the video game forum.
I never said anything of the sort. When did I ever say or imply that I was too busy thinking about the world's problems? All I said was that it's a trivial thing to get so worked up over.

Sticky said:
Fortunately, last thread even, I discussed in-depth why trying to use the starving children as a shield for your internet argument is selfish and hypocritical to an almost absurd degree. I'll just repost that now.
Seeing as nobody put that argument forth, I'm not sure why you are trying to argue with it.

Sticky said:
So you're arguing semantics instead of trying to defend an argument that you decided to bring up. Are we done here? I feel there isn't much of anything you can say at this point to paint yourself as someone who cares enough about the industry to actually say anything rational regarding it.
Uh, no. I'm not "using semantics" - and I have said plenty here to defend my argument. It actually seems more like you've gone off the topic (onto starving children, etc) - and you haven't addressed my arguments on the topic of the ethics of DLC. All you've said is "this is bad and harming people" but have not given any evidence of this harm.

Well, additionally to that you also seem to be pushing the idea of groupthink - that everybody should feel the same as you, and any disagreement must be the result of being uninformed. That we are somehow obligated to rally against the evil forces of DLC and games publishers. It's funny how much people here rail against "political correctness" and conformity, yet here you are, pushing literal conformity to a single viewpoint.

Really, it won't hurt you to have somebody disagree with you.
 

Sticky

New member
May 14, 2013
130
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Again, I'd like to see the harm done. Who has been harmed? Has anybody been misled, or purchased a product they didn't want to because of DLC?
Yes. Do you really not know about the MVC3 debacle?

Aardvaarkman said:
Maybe you could point out a problem that I am ignoring. The way I see it: Industry sells games with DLC. people buy DLC. Industry releases more games with DLC. People continue to buy.
And you're intentionally being simplistic with the problem, misrepresenting it even. Pretty much anyone who watches Jim's show or has paid attention to the industry in the last decade realizes that you're not being honest with the problem at hand with this blatant over simplification.

Aardvaarkman said:
I never said anything of the sort. When did I ever say or imply that I was too busy thinking about the world's problems? All I said was that it's a trivial thing to get so worked up over.
And I'm saying that it's perfectly acceptable to put passion into the subject of video games and you saying "No stop being passionate when the world is suffering!" is not only hypocritical, but is you intentionally trying to confuse the issue at hand.

Aardvaarkman said:
Really, it won't hurt you to have somebody disagree with you.
I'm okay with you disagreeing with me, I'm not okay with you putting forth an argument against my opinion and then not defending it. Or your best defense of the argument being "You're just too alarmist! Just lube up and accept that the industry has turned to dirt like the good little consumer you are". Which I really find offensive considering that I actually care about the industry.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Ubisoft handled it stupidly, but providing your own framing device is the act of jumping to a conclusion. It's not something people should base moral outrage on.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Sticky said:
Yes. Do you really not know about the MVC3 debacle?
No, not really. From what I gather from a quick search, there were development delays, and problems caused by the Earthquakes in Japan. Some content that was intended to be released as DLC ended up being released on disc.

So, maybe you can explain what the harm and deception was. It's not immediately obvious from the stories that I found.

Sticky said:
And you're intentionally being simplistic with the problem, misrepresenting it even. Pretty much anyone who watches Jim's show or has paid attention to the industry in the last decade realizes that you're not being honest with the problem at hand with this blatant over simplification.
I've watched every episode of Jim's show for the last couple of years or so. I often find that while he makes some good points, he's overly reactionary in his conclusions.

I'd like to know where I'm being dishonest. And maybe you're making things overly complicated? It does seem pretty straightforward to me.

Sticky said:
And I'm saying that it's perfectly acceptable to put passion into the subject of video games and you saying "No stop being passionate when the world is suffering!" is not only hypocritical, but is you intentionally trying to confuse the issue at hand.
But I never said anything of the sort. Why do you keep putting words into my mouth?

Sticky said:
I'm okay with you disagreeing with me, I'm not okay with you putting forth an argument against my opinion and then not defending it.
I did defend it. What more am I supposed to do? You don't like the product, don't buy it. You are not owed perfect choices exactly to your liking by the industry. I'm not sure why that needs any more defending.

I agree with Jim that the amount of pre-order versions is pretty hilarious and frankly, ridiculous. However, I don't agree that it is doing any harm, either to consumers or the industry. I don't care about getting some pre-order bonus hat or weapon, so I just buy the standard edition. Some people do like that stuff, so order the special editions. Seems like we both got what we wanted. The ridiculous number of versions being offered is funny but harmless. If it ends up hurting profits, they'll probably reduce the number of special editions for future releases.

Sticky said:
Or your best defense of the argument being "You're just too alarmist! Just lube up and accept that the industry has turned to dirt like the good little consumer you are". Which I really find offensive considering that I actually care about the industry.
Again, not my argument and you're putting words in my mouth. I never said you had to like or agree with the way the industry is.
 

Vladimir Eremeyev

New member
Sep 23, 2012
33
0
0
You talk about it like it's a bad thing.

Videogame racism is harmless, and it's only a symptom of a real problem. By shouting about some fictional racism in a videogame you don't make world a better place.