I have a not one problem with any of those things...except cosplay...and that's only when it's done wrong. When you almost barely recognize who they're supposed to be or they just look nasty...they're doing it wrong.
You didn't notice the massive sarcasm in the DRM section?Hubilub said:And of course, there isn't a spot for Bobby Kotick in the article. Guess that one was too tough to tackle.
I agree with most of the points, but not all of them. For example, I don't see how better (i.e. worse) DRM on a game proves its quality, or even hints that it is better to games with inferior DRM.
Other than that, all points are very valid. I never really hated on cosplay or quick-time events though, and I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 just fine without the Cerberus thingy.
I'm sorry but that is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard. I think it's actually ridiculous no matter how you look at it. To compare funding treatment for a disease that kills millions to DRM is crazy. Even if you ignored that. The comparison still breaks down. They don't release something that kills patients because it also decreases X number of symptoms. Developers just find something they think will work, and force it on their paying customers, then say sorry and release a patch when they find customers can't play the game they paid for (yeah, looking at you SecureROM).Seldon2639 said:Your wording belies your point "all their a attempts thus far". All attempts to make drugs to cure HIV have failed (no cure yet, folks), but scientists keep trying, even though it's right now just a money sink. If only they had your wisdom to not throw money into holes unless they fix the problem immediately.Gildan Bladeborn said:Saying that content providers have to protect their work, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that all their attempts thus far fail to do that and only annoy the people who actually give them money now... well it's an argument made from a position of willful ignorance of reality.
I just...I don't...I can't comprehend how you can be okay with this. I'll borrow somebody else's example: If you buy a car new, you get the doors and tires, but if you trade it in, the next person to buy it is going to have to get a new set of tires and doors? Isn't that preposterous?! What makes game publishers so special, that they get to give the free market the middle finger. And if you try to assert that this is just another part of the free market system, no, this is arm wrestling with the Invisible Hand. The scary part, is that they could win.FloodOne said:If core content is cut from a copy of the game, and you're required to purchase said content if you didn't buy new, then I'm perfectly fine with that.Mysnomer said:Okay, wow, didn't realize that. I don't like PTD because I know that eventually core content will be cut as part of the "extras" you need to pay for, but the fact that the inertia of the status quo will only lead to this affecting the person who buys it new? Mind boggling. Of course, this argument must be directed at consumers, b/c it's not like game publishers give a damn about you (tainted pirate filth that you are for dealing with the used game industry).
If saving five dollars is such a big deal to you people, maybe gaming isn't a hobby you should immerse yourself in.
I would argue that this could be getting into apples and oranges. While Warhammer may be justifiably expensive, videogames may not. (Not saying that either is fact, but that is how I feel). Also, when you buy the models, you can play the game, you do not need updates from the people manufacturers to enjoy the game as it is now. (such things are provided, but they are the essence of DLC, you don't need them, but they'll certainly enhance the experience)rsvp42 said:I have to agree with this in some respects. We think we deserve inexpensive access to large amounts of games. Honestly, playing games casually isn't very expensive, but yes there's money involved the more involved you are. As an example, several of my friends in college played the Warhammer 40k table-top game. Y'know, with all the figures and painting and whatnot. And even though I wanted to join in with my own army, I simply didn't have the money to buy a significant force, nor the extra time to build and paint them properly. So as much as I wanted to play, I simply couldn't afford it. But it's not like I deserved to play. I'm not entitled to inexpensive WH40K models. So in the end, I just used other's armies and played a little.FloodOne said:If saving five dollars is such a big deal to you people, maybe gaming isn't a hobby you should immerse yourself in.
I guess the point is that if a hobby is too expensive, should we really blame the hobby?
Personally, I think those mass-produced, unassembled, unpainted figures should be a lot cheaper, but that's just me. To be certain, I'm not sure what's right. On the one hand, I'd love to fight for lower prices when I think something is too expensive, but I feel like I'm just complaining and causing myself grief when I could just chill out and learn to live with it. I think it's important to be an engaged and informed consumer, but maybe I'm just jaded. I'd prefer to take an effective course of action.Mysnomer said:snip
What about despising the concept and mechanics of Bobby Kotick?Susan Arendt said:No, we just didn't want to single out actual individuals. Dissecting (so to speak) whether or not you should despise a person is different than whether or not you should hate a concept or game mechanic.Hubilub said:And of course, there isn't a spot for Bobby Kotick in the article. Guess that one was too tough to tackle.
That is sheer gold.SonicWaffle said:I throw on a bikini and call myself Big Daddy all the time. What's your point?Sure, anybody can throw on a bikini and call themselves Catwoman, but what about Big Daddy?
No. Sorry. They forged false receipts claiming they were cosplaying, and kept the money. They also lied to the student board about what 'poki' is. Pretty much every other student society is underfunded and could have used the several hundred pounds these guys spent on crappy Japanese snacks and themselves.diasravenguard said:But if they did it in a Japanese schoolgirl's outfit with the skirt a lil higher than the school rules and the top a little unbuttoned I would have given her the moneyFavouredEnemy said:I was going to post about how much I hate cosplay, but the argument basically boiled down to 'I hate anime', and once all your evidence is either a) subjecive or b) anecdotal, you really have to question why you're bothering posting.
For the record, anime fans/cosplayers (as an organised group) stole from me (by which I mean the Student's Union fund, and by extension, me as a student).![]()
Extraintrovert said:I think we have a winner.SonicWaffle said:I throw on a bikini and call myself Big Daddy all the time. What's your point?Sure, anybody can throw on a bikini and call themselves Catwoman, but what about Big Daddy?
AngelBlackChaos said:He's right. Wait for the photos so your infatuation will blow up into full, deeply satisfying love. XD
lacktheknack said:I can't tell if you just won an internet or should be crucified...
Wow, guys. Just wow. I had no idea that the thought of me in a bikini would be so popular, especially after I was arrested for going shopping in one....mikespoff said:That is sheer gold.![]()
I don't want to seem adversarial, but can you provide definite evidence that this is the case? As I'm sure this issue will come up in debate later, having something to point other than a random forum post would definitely help in my campaign against PTD.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:I'm sorry, I don't want to contribute nothing to this article but bitchery and moaning but, whilst the rest of the article was funny, illuminating and generally an enjoyable read, the article on Project $10 was simply wrong. Not slightly incorrect, not out by a mite, plain out and out wrong.
I don't know how I come across on the forums, but I'm a pretty relaxed person. I've learned to vote with my wallet etc. etc. and I don't feel "entitled" to inexpensive games (I do, however, dispute the validity of their pricing). But the high cost of gaming has kept me behind the times, and I think my pent up frustration may show in my posts, which are the only places I really feel my opinion is heard.rsvp42 said:Personally, I think those mass-produced, unassembled, unpainted figures should be a lot cheaper, but that's just me. To be certain, I'm not sure what's right. On the one hand, I'd love to fight for lower prices when I think something is too expensive, but I feel like I'm just complaining and causing myself grief when I could just chill out and learn to live with it. I think it's important to be an engaged and informed consumer, but maybe I'm just jaded. I'd prefer to take an effective course of action.
Yeah, this is my fault, I'd never seen a PS3 Greatest Hits title, so I didn't think they had them. Still, the current gen bar is set at $30, with no additional content, so there's obviously room for improvement. But like I said, I've never even seen a greatest hits game for PS3, so I don't think their very common yet. That was pretty much the best thing that happened to gaming last gen, I think $20 was the perfect price where you didn't feel scammed if the game wasn't perfect, and it seemed like a great bargain if the game was high quality.As for your last point under the asterisk, don't companies already do that? Prices typically go down the longer a game has been on the shelves. Sometimes they even accelerate that with the "greatest hits" titles that go to $20 later on. Granted, that tends to be much later in a game's life and usually all your friends will have played it and moved on, but that's the incentive to buy new.