Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Bhruic

Real Name Bhruic   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 14, 2004, 23:07
Total Comments 3145 (Veteran)
User ID 22304
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ] Older >


News Comments > Morning Metaverse
8. Re: Ron Paul seeks to unmask YouTube user who uploaded offensive Huntsman ad. Post Comment Jan 30, 2012, 14:24 Bhruic
 
Let's assume corporations are a pit bull. Right now you have the government catering to them, like a pit bull owner that beats the dog to teach it to be mean, then lets it attack other dogs when he walks it in the park. The solution to this is to change the owner and keep the dog on a tighter leash.

Using your analogy, the situation is closer to two pit bulls going for a walk in the park, with the expectation that one of the pit bulls is going to keep the other pit bull in line. The solution to the problem is to have someone who isn't a pit bull in charge of things. That is, however, more difficult than the analogy makes it sound.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up
15. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Jan 30, 2012, 13:49 Bhruic
 
The thing about "spotting" cheaters is that the cheating has become much more subtle. The days of having a guy with a full-on aimbot are mostly gone - if only because they know they'll get banned fairly quickly. These days, it's mostly about assisted playing - assisted aiming, assisted spotting, etc. For example, having the ability to spot all enemies gives you a leg up, but it doesn't translate into something you can spot as cheating.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 30, 2012, 10:51 Bhruic
 
As I commented on another site, that move by the feds is damn scary. No one has been convicted of anything yet, there's been no due process, but they believe they have the right to start eliminating user data?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Maxis' AAA Game Plans
20. Re: Maxis' AAA Game Plans Jan 30, 2012, 09:09 Bhruic
 
Still, the original Spore was ambitious and creative

The original Spore design was ambitious and creative. The Spore game turned out to be neither.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Safety Dance
2. Re: Saturday Safety Dance Jan 29, 2012, 12:09 Bhruic
 
And by "privacy" you mean "completely open information that people have posted for anyone to read", right?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
34. Re: etc. Jan 29, 2012, 04:11 Bhruic
 
What happens when everyone is gay? No more babies.

Yes, because no gay person in the history of the world has ever had kids.

Oh, wait.

Being hetero- or homosexual affects your preference. It doesn't make you unable to have sex with the gender you don't prefer.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More Diablo III Cuts
63. Re: More Diablo III Cuts Jan 28, 2012, 18:43 Bhruic
 
If Blizzard didn't have such open closed beta's, we would know about a few generic features, and them getting cut wouldn't really amount to much...

This a good point that I've been thinking myself. I get rather annoyed over betas that are just glorified demos, so it's been nice to see a company conducting actual beta testing. But seeing how people react to this is quickly demonstrating why companies have stopped doing it. When you beta test, you identify areas of improvement, and then make the necessary changes. When you have people reacting to changes as if it's causing huge problems, well, that's a PR nightmare.

This is what testing is supposed to accomplish people. Just because you had a "great idea" for a game doesn't mean that it's going to end up playing well. And if it doesn't, then a good company will respond to that fact and change or remove the feature. That is not a bad thing, it's a good thing - it's an indicator of a company that's actually trying to make an enjoyable game, rather than just rushing out the latest yearly money-maker.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More Diablo III Cuts
47. Re: More Diablo III Cuts Jan 28, 2012, 09:41 Bhruic
 
Well, that's rather my point. If they had such a neglible affect on the game, why would they "feel" like they are mandatory? It's an odd way to describe something if they are as pointless as it's suggested.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More Diablo III Cuts
43. Re: More Diablo III Cuts Jan 28, 2012, 07:22 Bhruic
 
Sounds like some people don't know how simple and almost invisible the Companion pets were in D3. They zipped around picking up gold, that's it. They were tiny and were barely visible. They did nothing else.

In principle, I agree that people are (again) vastly over-reacting...

With that said, however, I'm a bit confused about the pets. If all the pets did was pick up gold, why did the CM describe them as if "they were mandatory to maximize play efficiency"? It's hard to see picking up gold as something that mandatory.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Paradox on Sword of the Stars 2 Problems
7. Re: Paradox on Sword of the Stars 2 Problems Jan 27, 2012, 13:08 Bhruic
 
But it wasn't noticed ahead of time and corrected, so when the problems became clear it was too late

Too late for what? Did they not notice until the game was already on shelves?

If they noticed even 1 day before that happened, it wasn't too late to do something about it. Instead, they said "fuck it", and let the customers get screwed.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
3. Re: Evening Metaverse Jan 27, 2012, 07:50 Bhruic
 
People tend to get too caught up in the labels. If you check out most political spectrum charts, they have left/right combined with authoritarian/libertarian. Being left/right has no impact on your authoritarian/libertarian ranking. In other words, "liberals" vs "conservatives" isn't really the right distinction to be making when it comes to issues like this.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
36. Re: Out of the Blue Jan 27, 2012, 03:47 Bhruic
 
Science if full of approximations and limitations. I am a scientists. I do not believe the earth is flat. But, over a small enough range, for piratical purposes the earth can be treated as flat. We make simplifications all the time in science.

I have no real point here, I am just saying; I can say the earth is flat and depending on my perspective and application I am correct within acceptable tolerance.

Sure, and 2 + 2 = 5 is true for sufficiently large values of 2. But I don't think that's what we should be teaching kids in school.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Mobilization
25. Re: Morning Mobilization Jan 27, 2012, 03:42 Bhruic
 
The reason people buy Apple products is because it just works.

Of course, "it" being in this context "Chinese worker in a FoxConn factory."

Considering how many other companies do business with FoxConn, I'm pretty sure all of us have computer components from them. Taking the smug high road probably isn't an option, unless you want to be a hypocrite.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > THQ Refocuses - Open Letter
76. Re: THQ Refocuses - Open Letter Jan 26, 2012, 09:09 Bhruic
 
Okay, we can defintiely agree that the CEO of Mobile Exxon is rich. But any legislation that forces him to pay "his fair share" will also end up affecting the small business owner, someone who more often than not is far from rich.

Why? You don't think it's possible to craft a law that only applies to larger corporations? There are quite a few such laws already in existence.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > THQ Refocuses - Open Letter
71. Re: THQ Refocuses - Open Letter Jan 26, 2012, 06:26 Bhruic
 
Again the rich already pay more than anyone else, we have a progressive tax system in the US. Taxing them more won't do a damn thing. It's just class warfare to distract from the actual issues facing the US.

Yes, if the "rich" are stupid. And hire stupid accountants. Any "rich" person with half a brain cell, who's hired an accountant with half a brain cell is going to have numerous tax loopholes to work with. Not to mention the cap-gains tax rate is substantially lower than income tax rates. The "average" person can't afford to invest that much, while the super-wealthy can, giving them a substantial tax break.

What you don't seem to understand is that the people who are making the rules are either super-wealthy themselves, or getting "campaign contributions" from those that are. They have no incentive to make things better for the middle class, and every incentive to make things better for the rich. This isn't a party issue - Republicans AND Democrats fall into this category (with one or two exceptions).

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - Paradox on DRM
33. Re: Quoteworthy - Paradox on DRM Jan 25, 2012, 16:20 Bhruic
 

It doesn't matter. Without region locking, those products wouldn't be sold in those regions

Totally missing the point. I'm not arguing about what is happening (or would happen), I'm arguing about what should happen. Why should people who happen to be making $10K in a "poor region" be able to buy a game for substantially less than someone making $10K in a "rich region"?


"Me me me me me me me me me me me me."

Ah, yes, you've taken dodging the question to new heights. Of course, such stupidity is your stock-in-trade.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - Paradox on DRM
29. Re: Quoteworthy - Paradox on DRM Jan 25, 2012, 15:39 Bhruic
 
In many of these countries $10k is more than enough to live comfortably. $10k translates to $40k here..

That does nothing but dodge the question. If they can't afford to pay the $60 for the game, why should they get it for less? If someone is making $10K here, why shouldn't they have the same ability to buy the game at a discounted price?

The cost of most goods scale with the local economy, as do goods sold internationally. Do you know how expensive a box of Pringles is in China? Much cheaper than here. Or how expensive diapers are in Thailand? Again, much cheaper, for the exact same product.

And yet there are no region locks on a can of Pringles or diapers. The original poster bought a physical product, just like the chips or diapers, but only it was prevented from being used by region locks.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - Paradox on DRM
27. Re: Quoteworthy - Paradox on DRM Jan 25, 2012, 15:09 Bhruic
 
So what you're saying is that countries with an average income of under $10k shouldn't be allowed to play games, eh?

Why should they? Or, to better frame the question, why should someone's ability to purchase a game be decided by their geophysical location, rather than income? When people have brought up in the past that some people pirate games/movies/whatever because they can't afford to buy them, you, and others, have responded with the "if you can't afford it, you shouldn't be playing it" line.

It's not like we are talking about medicine, food and water, or other such necessities here, we are talking about entertainment products.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battle.net World Championship Announced, No BlizzCon 2012
12. Re: Battle.net World Championship Announced, No BlizzCon 2012 Jan 25, 2012, 15:02 Bhruic
 
I enjoy watching SCII replays, and I'm sure some people would consider that a bit odd, but with that being said... Competitive World of Warcraft? Really?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 24, 2012, 11:28 Bhruic
 
SOPA sponsor has another Internet bill that records you 24/7.

Wow, talk about a massive overreaction. All the bill does is mandate that ISPs store who they assign IPs to. That's it. It's not "spying" on you, nor is it stealing your credit card info.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3145 Comments. 158 pages. Viewing page 49.
< Newer [ 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo