ASeven wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 11:44:

Beamer wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 11:34:
[Says the guy that claims to be a video game industry analyst despite that no respectable company would pay someone as biased as he is.

I don't know why you put "MBA" in quotes like that. 99% of MBAs aren't worth the paper they're written on and an MBA can be had for, like, $200 per credit online. It's not like the initials are hard to get or meaningful on their own.

Sorry? Where did I ever said here I was a video game analyst? I know I'm used to your constant bullshit but sometimes you throw something as hilarious as this.

I am a financial analyst. I never claimed to be a videogame industry analyst. And even if I were, I got more things right, like THQ going down and indies rising, than you ever did in all your time here. So please kindly shut up when you have nothing to show for your supposed work and business sense.

If there's someone who keeps bullshitting every single day here that person is you. And if you're going to wave your epenis around by saying I don't get paid by any respectable company, it's safe to say that the companies I deal with as my clients would be the ones you would dream to work for, and that's all I'll ever say about my work.

ASeven wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 11:19:

Beamer wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 08:42:

Cutter wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 21:59:

ASeven wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 20:39:

swedishfriend wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 20:27:
Gaming has never been mainstream before. The big publishers are not the only game in town these days. It is very easy to find out about the quality of a game before buying these days. Plus there are many more high quality games now than there ever were before in history. Gaming today is very different from the way it was in 1983.

Doesn't makes their points any less valid.

Yes it does. That diatribe was flawed on every level. It was just whining.

Video won't load for me. Did ASeven make it?

As bad as the video is, it has more business sense than you ever could, even with the supposed "MBA" you have.

Cutter wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 21:59:

ASeven wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 20:39:

swedishfriend wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 20:27:
Gaming has never been mainstream before. The big publishers are not the only game in town these days. It is very easy to find out about the quality of a game before buying these days. Plus there are many more high quality games now than there ever were before in history. Gaming today is very different from the way it was in 1983.

Doesn't makes their points any less valid.

Yes it does. That diatribe was flawed on every level. It was just whining.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 16:24:

Beamer wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 16:14:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 16:08:

Quboid wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 15:42:
Why do lawmakers on the left want to reduce the availability of high power weapons? Gee, I don't know, maybe because people are being killed by them, in elementary schools, cimenas, amongst other places. What threat to them in the long run? Not much. Do you have a problem with politicians not acting out of self interest?

You're getting off topic there, but it's interesting that you consider being against requiring picture ID to be totalitarian. I'm sure the voter fraud (weasel wording again, not just his 2 wins but every election ever) made a big difference. Hilariously, that guy's almost definitely a Republican and certainly anti-gun control.

I don't, just that there's a lot of bills and efforts being made by this administration heading that way.

Having ID to vote should have been a law a long time ago. I wonder how many more people than that woman in Ohio who voted for Obama about 5 times, twice for herself and for other people. Why is the left against it? If you take voting seriously, and everyone should, than it shouldn't be so tough to get a picture id, most things we do in life need one anyway.

What else would you call it by the way with the term "weasel wording" wtf does that even mean? It's called being fucking accountable and following the law. What's bad about that?

That woman voted once in person and, possibly, 5 times via absentee ballot.

How do IDs prevent that? One woman claims she gave the other permission to use her vote. So even ID numbers don't prevent that.

Anyway, it isn't like those absentee ballots were counted, and voter fraud tends to be a huge myth. You know, like the fat, happy welfare queen.

Easy get rid of absentee ballots. Oh yeah Beamer it's just a myth, it was a myth in 2000 too when you all cried that Bush stole Florida No? Explain the county in Ohio that gave Obama 108% of the total people in that district. Why is the left against picture id? Simple, they'd lose a whole hell of a lot more elections.
In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes...but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It's not humanly possible to get 108% of the vote!

What about the 52 districts in Philly and 9 in Ohio that had zero votes at all for Romney? No no fraud there, of course not.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 16:08:

Quboid wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 15:42:
Why do lawmakers on the left want to reduce the availability of high power weapons? Gee, I don't know, maybe because people are being killed by them, in elementary schools, cimenas, amongst other places. What threat to them in the long run? Not much. Do you have a problem with politicians not acting out of self interest?

You're getting off topic there, but it's interesting that you consider being against requiring picture ID to be totalitarian. I'm sure the voter fraud (weasel wording again, not just his 2 wins but every election ever) made a big difference. Hilariously, that guy's almost definitely a Republican and certainly anti-gun control.

I don't, just that there's a lot of bills and efforts being made by this administration heading that way.

Having ID to vote should have been a law a long time ago. I wonder how many more people than that woman in Ohio who voted for Obama about 5 times, twice for herself and for other people. Why is the left against it? If you take voting seriously, and everyone should, than it shouldn't be so tough to get a picture id, most things we do in life need one anyway.

What else would you call it by the way with the term "weasel wording" wtf does that even mean? It's called being fucking accountable and following the law. What's bad about that?

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 12:41:

yuastnav wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 12:18:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:29:
[...] You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.

Random member of arbitrary group thinks in a certain way. Clearly this means that all the members of that arbitrary group think exactly the same.


Furthermore all statistics are open to interpretation and have a different meaning depending on the context they are being used in or they are being the taken out of.

No different than the republicans are all racist rhetoric we get all the time.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 12:16:

Beamer wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 11:24:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:29:
Funny how statistics don't matter unless it's to back your agenda. http://tinyurl.com/cmg4872 You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.

Who is this to and why does it matter?

Who here is a card carrying liberal?

And shut up with weasel words. "Agenda." Jesus. You have, like, 10 words in your vocabulary. "You libtards have an agenda!" That's half of them.

There is an agenda against the 2nd amendment, it's clear as day, anyone with half a brain cell who looks at what dem lawmakers say can see it, the bills they introduce. Do your homework, pay attention to it. Don't just be a blind sheep. That goes for republicans as well, because it's on both sides Beamer, most of these career politicians be they democrats or republicans don't have our best interest in mind, just their own.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:18:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 23:40:

Prez wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 22:52:
Sarcasm and pointless stat-posting aside, I view it as strictly a public good vs. individual liberties thing. Numbers and stats in issues like this can be made to dance a jig, and the same set of data can be deftly skewed to support either side with a little clever spinning. Thus, I tend to ignore numbers. Personally, I honestly don't care if banning guns in a city would seem to have the effect of lowering crime overall in that city. What concerns me most is if such a move would make me and my family safer. Call me self-centered, but lower overall crime rates is no consolation if the removal of my ability to defend myself cause myself or my family to be made victims when one of the criminals who happily ignore such rules crosses paths with me. As a side note, driving a nice car and working nights by myself in a high crime area of a high crime city makes me a prime target for violent crime, so it's not like I'm just sitting in fear in my nice house in suburbia fearing a random home invasion.

With that in mind, while the answer to Chicago's extremely high violent crime rate is obviously not so easily solved as allowing unrestricted ownership, I am more concerned that, regardless of what is fueling it or what long-term solutions may ultimately bring it under control, in the short term the high violent crime rate, extreme level of illegal gun ownership, and the lack of the ability to defend oneself from an armed attacker/attackers makes for a very dangerous mix and renders Chicago a scary, dangerous place to be avoided at all costs to my mind.

Another reason numbers aren't useful is because of what they don't show. For example, it's very easy to find numbers showing how many accidental shootings and suicides happen in the US because gun ownership is so prevalent since something bad actually happened. Meanwhile, the American Rifle Association estimates that in around 95% of cases where a firearm was used to protect oneself or others, the weapon was never fired. How can something of that nature, where a crisis situation was defused peacefully, be even close to accurately tracked? I myself witnessed this exact occurrence in a Memphis, TN Schnucks parking lot in 2006, where a crazed knife-wielding assailant chased a woman out of the store but was subdued before he could stab her by an arm citizen pointing his gun at him an ordering him to drop the knife and get on the ground (Incidentally this was the catalyst for me getting my permit to carry and I've done so ever since). Aside from a brief story on the news, the case was forgotten. I've read countless similar accounts from around the US. It's hard for me to consider numbers that leave out at least half of the story when trying to make heads or tales of an issue.

In the end, while it won't endear me to any of the extreme anti-gun control lobbies in America (or my ultra-conservative wife and father-in-law for that matter), I have to say that this proud gun owner and carrier was on board with almost all of the initiatives concerning new gun regulation highlighted by VP Biden following the Newton CT shootings. Regardless of who you are, who in their right minds could be against universal background checks to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of spouse abusers, felons, and the mentally ill? Who could honestly be against closing the obvious loopholes such people routinely use at the many gun shows around the country every year, or stiffer penalties for people who acquire weapons for those who fail the checks for whatever reason? The 'slippery slope' argument doesn't apply here - these are obvious and overdue regualtions that may end up preventing another mentally unstable monster like Holmes or Adam Lanza getting a hold of weapons that they have no business touching. I think the term "pick your battles" applies well here - this particular war is one conservatives shouldn't wage.

Nice post. I tried to post the numbers to pretty much prove they aren't useful.
Except it revealed Hawaii. I imagine it's very difficult to get guns in Hawaii. Makes sense, I mean, it's difficult to get anything not made in Hawaii in Hawaii. I should see if I could find per capita gun ownership there. Of course, it's not wholly meaningful, numbers may not "lie" but they don't tell the whole story. Maybe surfing makes people less likely to shoot. Who knows?

But the rabid anti-gun-control people constantly ignore that we've been down this road. We made automatic rifles very hard to get and tracked them. And, as a result, automatic rifle crime dropped dramatically. We then flat-out banned any automatic rifles not grandfathered in. Automatic rifle crime dropped again.

No one wants to take all the guns. People want to take the most deadly guns. No one thinks this will magically stop gun crime. But there's hope it will reduce gun fetishes, of which our society is certainly fond of, and make the leap from "I want to inflict damage" to "hey, the smart way to do that is with a gun!" less common.

And after you take assault rifles, which are miniscule when you look at the actual data of crimes/murder with assault riffles, what's next after that when that doesn't do anything to drop gun crime rates?

After the feel good wears off, is it going to be handguns next?

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:29:
Funny how statistics don't matter unless it's to back your agenda. http://tinyurl.com/cmg4872 You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.

TurdFergasun wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 06:19:
Nexus phones don't put up the numbers because they're not manufactured in large enough batches. The nexus 4 is sold out mostly everywhere, and was $400. The nexus 5 coming out soon looks to be another piece of excellent hardware not subsidized through convoluted, and obtuse contract schemes as well.

beamer you don't just pump the status quo. Hell the status quo wouldn't even consent to what you're trying to do to it.

swedishfriend wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 23:17:
Reading the full article I must point out that they are talking about being able to keep games up to date in low power states. They are not talking about requiring an internet connection to play games.

Prez wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 22:52:
Sarcasm and pointless stat-posting aside, I view it as strictly a public good vs. individual liberties thing. Numbers and stats in issues like this can be made to dance a jig, and the same set of data can be deftly skewed to support either side with a little clever spinning. Thus, I tend to ignore numbers. Personally, I honestly don't care if banning guns in a city would seem to have the effect of lowering crime overall in that city. What concerns me most is if such a move would make me and my family safer. Call me self-centered, but lower overall crime rates is no consolation if the removal of my ability to defend myself cause myself or my family to be made victims when one of the criminals who happily ignore such rules crosses paths with me. As a side note, driving a nice car and working nights by myself in a high crime area of a high crime city makes me a prime target for violent crime, so it's not like I'm just sitting in fear in my nice house in suburbia fearing a random home invasion.

With that in mind, while the answer to Chicago's extremely high violent crime rate is obviously not so easily solved as allowing unrestricted ownership, I am more concerned that, regardless of what is fueling it or what long-term solutions may ultimately bring it under control, in the short term the high violent crime rate, extreme level of illegal gun ownership, and the lack of the ability to defend oneself from an armed attacker/attackers makes for a very dangerous mix and renders Chicago a scary, dangerous place to be avoided at all costs to my mind.

Another reason numbers aren't useful is because of what they don't show. For example, it's very easy to find numbers showing how many accidental shootings and suicides happen in the US because gun ownership is so prevalent since something bad actually happened. Meanwhile, the American Rifle Association estimates that in around 95% of cases where a firearm was used to protect oneself or others, the weapon was never fired. How can something of that nature, where a crisis situation was defused peacefully, be even close to accurately tracked? I myself witnessed this exact occurrence in a Memphis, TN Schnucks parking lot in 2006, where a crazed knife-wielding assailant chased a woman out of the store but was subdued before he could stab her by an arm citizen pointing his gun at him an ordering him to drop the knife and get on the ground (Incidentally this was the catalyst for me getting my permit to carry and I've done so ever since). Aside from a brief story on the news, the case was forgotten. I've read countless similar accounts from around the US. It's hard for me to consider numbers that leave out at least half of the story when trying to make heads or tales of an issue.

In the end, while it won't endear me to any of the extreme anti-gun control lobbies in America (or my ultra-conservative wife and father-in-law for that matter), I have to say that this proud gun owner and carrier was on board with almost all of the initiatives concerning new gun regulation highlighted by VP Biden following the Newton CT shootings. Regardless of who you are, who in their right minds could be against universal background checks to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of spouse abusers, felons, and the mentally ill? Who could honestly be against closing the obvious loopholes such people routinely use at the many gun shows around the country every year, or stiffer penalties for people who acquire weapons for those who fail the checks for whatever reason? The 'slippery slope' argument doesn't apply here - these are obvious and overdue regualtions that may end up preventing another mentally unstable monster like Holmes or Adam Lanza getting a hold of weapons that they have no business touching. I think the term "pick your battles" applies well here - this particular war is one conservatives shouldn't wage.

Cutter wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 16:37:
All Sony has to do to win is not do that and allow used game sales.

nin wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 16:17:

Gipson wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 16:15:

Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 16:12:

ASeven wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 15:25:
Prison Architect is shaping up to become the best tycoon type of game on the PC in a decade. Strongly recommended, even in alpha.

That does look like fun and Introversion are cool. It's not the first prison sim for what that's worth (zilch). I'm tempted. The price seems pretty high for an alpha, £20 would be steep for the full game and what happens if the project never gets that far?

I like how for just an extra £7, they'll let me do some of their work for them. Bargain!

it seems the games are priced such so that the people who buy now fully understand what they're getting into and won't complain about bugs, etc. ie. no kiddies

I pity any dev who solicits feedback from the steam boards...there are some nice folks there, but then the rest will make you realize how truly fucked humanity is.