InBlack wrote on May 17, 2013, 03:17:
After playing TF, Modern Warfare, and lately Natural Selection 2 CS just feels...odd now. Played a few rounds of CS:GO @ a friend's house and I cant get past how retro the gameplay is, and by 'retro' I dont mean in a good way. I was going to purchase it for nostalgia's sake but those few rounds convinced me otherwise.

netnerd85 wrote on May 17, 2013, 03:29:

Jerykk wrote on May 16, 2013, 23:25:

Remember kiddies, DRM is only good if it's Valve's. At least that seems to be the message around here.

Not sure if you've ever bothered reading any threads about this topic but I'll summarize:

1) DRM is bad.
2) Steam's non-DRM features are good.
3) Steam's good features outweigh the downsides of its DRM.

That's why people like Steam. It's not really rocket science. Standalone DRM is completely worthless, as it offers no benefits to the consumer. Steam offers plenty of benefits to the consumer so the consumer is far more tolerant of the DRM.

People who trade freedom for security and convenience are fools. Why forcefully put shackles on someone when you can get the fools to willing do it themselves.

"I like all my games in one spot", like the games folder under D drive or H drive or whatever you want to call it?

"But I can chat to my friends", like on Skype or the telephone?

DRM is always bad, you have to believe that

NKD wrote on May 16, 2013, 05:41:

Capitan wrote on May 16, 2013, 01:33:
So this is what happens when game studios becomes too big. Do they think that a game idea will not be financially good enough. they put that idea down. This kind of thing happened very rarely in the 80's and 90's.

It didn't used to take a 100 person team 2 years to make a game in the 80s and 90s. It still doesn't, depending on what you're making. But if people want diversity and high risk projects, they are going to have to give up a few things.

Julio wrote on May 13, 2013, 20:21:
I could care less if Prenda notified my neighbors about some sort of porn I saw.

Marvin T. Martian wrote on May 13, 2013, 18:40:

Sir Graves wrote on May 13, 2013, 16:58:
Wait, this is a third-person shooter? Darn. I like first-person when it comes to shooters. So no thanks.

Yep -my preference also, too bad they changed it even though I have played a few decent 3rd person games. There's just something that about the 3rd person that is wrong. Then again, I grew up pre-console and never cared for 3rd person.
And if they are 'afraid' to show off a few minutes of actual in game play, I have my doubts. --Pre-order? Not a chance.

Prez wrote on May 10, 2013, 17:57:
See? Politics sidelined a perfectly good EA-bashing thread. Unacceptable!

I don't know if I am more taken aback by how stupid it is that you need to pay a licensing fee to model a Colt or Bushmaster assault rifle in your game (especially when there are umpteen AR-15 versions by different manufacturers that all look virtually identical) or by EA's blatant hypocricy. "Guns and gun manufacturers are bad... we just won't let that stop us from making tons of cash on games loaded with guns and shooting people."

Cutter wrote on May 11, 2013, 00:11:
Xbox Mobius.

Sepharo wrote on May 9, 2013, 03:42:

Prez wrote on May 8, 2013, 13:46:
I am SOOOOO happy Blue is clamping down on the never-ending politico debates. I can read this crap in the CNN and USA Today forum in every news story. I certainly don't need it here too.

Don't act like you haven't often participated

I'm not one for censorship but I understand it's Blue's site and he is law. I do hope this doesn't mean a reduction in articles on "political" topics because there is a place for these kind of discussions this thread just doesn't happen to be one of them. I do find the euro-racism (ethnic nationalism I guess) to be interesting though.

NKD wrote on May 9, 2013, 11:20:
It's pretty clear from watching this that they've done a lot to the game and it's not just a couple extra weapons and enemy skins on the same exact map. But I expect that won't stop the "Waaah its just a DLC pack!" people.

Jerykk wrote on May 9, 2013, 00:07:
At the very least, pronounce it "wolf-en-stine." "Steen" is just terrible.

And yes, it can be awkward to use proper pronunciations during casual conversation, unless you're speaking to people who are aware of your obsession with proper pronunciation. If you're really concerned, it's okay to use the butchered English pronunciations. However, you should never try to correct someone and then cite the incorrect pronunciation as the correct one.

Jerykk wrote on May 8, 2013, 23:12:

BTW, in English is is pronounced Heck-ler and Coke. So many people say Cotch, but it's Coke.

That's incorrect as well. It's pronounced "kohgghhh." It's a German name and therefore, only the German pronunciation is correct. Claiming that there's an English pronunciation is silly because it isn't an English name. It's like how people pronounce Wolfenstein as "wolf-en-steen." No. It's "volf-en-shtine." If you're not pronouncing it like that, you're doing it wrong.

Verno wrote on May 8, 2013, 10:39:

Eldaron Imotholin wrote on May 8, 2013, 10:31:
What he said.

And Verno, I was out of line how? If you want me to just zip it, don't accuse me in such subjective fashion. RollinThundr out of line too? If so.. why is that your opinion?

I'll just keep reposting this until it sinks in.

You guys only have yourselves to blame. Blue posted last week that there was going to be a push back against this sort of off-topic, political/religion derailing that has becoming more and more common around here which is pissing off the site regulars. Acting like it's a restriction of your personal freedoms is absurd, you just want to post some personal grievances and get attention.

Also freedom of expression doesn't pertain to a privately owned website though I would note that Blue is exceptionally lenient in this regard and you do not give him credit for even half of the shit you would not get away with anywhere else (which is why some of you are here). If you had posted this kind of shit on SA anywhere but the Debate Forum I would have banned the lot of you and most other sites follow the same rules.

Tom wrote on May 7, 2013, 20:06:

Beamer wrote on May 7, 2013, 11:55:
Yeah. There are typically 2 users of Adobe products:
1) Corporate/business users, who make a lot of money off of Adobe and pay for Adobe
2) Home/hobby users, who do not pay for Adobe

Adobe doesn't care about #2, for good reason.

Ummm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoshop_Elements
"Targeted at hobbyists and consumers, it is sold at a fraction (roughly 1/6) of the cost of its professional sibling, Adobe Photoshop CS."

Beamer wrote on May 7, 2013, 11:55:

Verno wrote on May 7, 2013, 11:05:
I don't know, its probably better for small businesses and students in the long run so I can sorta get behind this. The number of pirated copies of CS in a college setting would shock most people, the high cost was always a barrier of entry even with student/academic licensing models sometimes.

Yeah. There are typically 2 users of Adobe products:
1) Corporate/business users, who make a lot of money off of Adobe and pay for Adobe
2) Home/hobby users, who do not pay for Adobe

Adobe doesn't care about #2, for good reason. If you're a hobbyist you're likely using a pirated version. If you pay, it's actually cheaper this way, assuming you like the newest versions. PhotoShop is $20 per month.

And, for the hobbyist, PhotoShop Elements is still a stand alone.



I'd guess the vast majority of people bitching, not everyone in this thread but overall, has pirated most of the Adobe CS products they've used.