Blue wrote on May 9, 2013, 14:59:

Slick wrote on May 9, 2013, 14:20:
Blue, my "mastery of facts" involve a tiny amount of journalistic assertion, and fact-checking, rare these days i know. you run a website focused on journalism. I'd think that you would be pro journalism, and not insinuating that i'm trying to be a "mind-reader", for looking up facts instead of spouting opinion disguised as facts. come on dude.

I don't think you follow my point. You can disagree with someone without calling them a liar, much less repeatedly. The mind reader comment was simply to say that no one needs you parsing who is lying versus who is mistaken versus who is simply disagreeing with your opinion.

This has nothing to do with journalism, this has to do with courtesy. Read forum rule #1.

TurdFergasun wrote on May 9, 2013, 14:11:
this must be one of EA's added value decisions like centralizing all servers so that it's much easier for DDOS attacks to be effective. Good work EA on stopping all that hacking too, since having control over the hosting has stopped that completely as well. Whats your share price again?

Blue wrote on May 9, 2013, 06:35:
You probably can't win, but you're obviously trying. Speaking of which, I'm going to ask you to stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar. Your mastery of facts does not cover mind-reading.

Fantaz wrote on May 9, 2013, 01:13:
Who is this Slick user who's been making most of his posts from his account in this comments thread here?

Trevellian wrote on May 8, 2013, 23:53:
I told you, your facts and math offend the average user. You need to spit more vile hatred towards EA if you want to be liked. You're doing it wrong man.

Cyanotetyphas wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:32:
Should have used a bitcoin standard

Blackhawk wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:47:
Oh, Blizzard has always known they'd lose subscriptions eventually, and they planned around it. They aren't 'crashing', they're on the downhill end of the curve that they've been working around for years.

Ravor wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:30:
It's too bad they have to fire 900 people when they could just fire one or 2 execs instead to come up with that same wage value..

Redmask wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:03:

Slick wrote on May 8, 2013, 19:39:
i guess i shouldn't even mention that with inflation over the last 10 years, BF games and all xpacks have technically gotten cheaper. but who trusts math? it's all cold hard fact, no heart.

The inflation argument is stupid because it ignores the fact that the size of the market increased so drastically that it allowed them to maintain that price point and make more money doing so. You can't make money if you price yourself out of reach for consumers, there is no 'bargain' in it for consumers, it's simple business. The whole 'adjusted for inflation' is a crutch that weak arguments rely on.

The price argument also ignores several important factors like the quality of the content provided for the money, the time and manner it was delivered and so forth. Your so called facts are presented in a one sided manner to further a personal agenda without examination of other important considersations and thus are worthless.

ASeven wrote on May 8, 2013, 20:14:
May I remind the disingenuous that past Battlefield expansion packs actually included a lot more than 4 maps and some silly achievements and a couple of weapons and vehicles, with said vehicles being able to be used in all maps instead of only a select few? And that those expansion packs brought enough content to justify the pricetag, unlike, say, BF3's DLCs?

It's easy to talk about facts when selectively choosing only the ones to fit your views.

Trevellian wrote on May 8, 2013, 19:20:

Slick wrote on May 8, 2013, 13:59:
love noobs qqing bout premium... sigh

bf 1942 and all xpacks = 110$

bf2 and all xpacks = 110$

bf3 and all xpacks = 110$

noobs who dont know their history are ruining gaming

This is Bluesnews. Take your math, and facts elsewhere.

Teddy wrote on May 8, 2013, 00:38:

Slick wrote on May 8, 2013, 00:12:
everything you've ever seem in a tv show, movie, or any other visual medium are usually real-life products. you don't re-imagine every piece of furniture in a living room TV set because you don't want to license from lay-z-boy. costs of production would skyrocket if you had to re-invent anything seen into a fake-brandless non-existant item.

It goes the other way around in movies, actually. Companies pay veritable fortunes to movie studios to have their products used in movies and TV shows, as opposed to their competitors. Think Audi and Converse in "I, Robot". That's just an example of the more obvious ones.

Morgan Spurlock made a documentary talking about this exact subject, called "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold".

Creston wrote on May 8, 2013, 00:24:

mag wrote on May 8, 2013, 00:12:
For a related reason, games that feature licensed cars tend to (or at least used to) not feature visible vehicle damage.

That's actually a requirement of the license? That's just absolutely fucking retarded.

Creston