Horrifically dated, but a ton of fun

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 16, 2021, 08:37:

Beamer wrote on Sep 16, 2021, 07:47:
Reminds me of all the horrible takes that seatbelt laws destroyed our freedom. That was in the 80s. Everyone agrees those beliefs were moronic then...

Do they? Although I haven't heard it recently it would not shock me in the least to find out there is a "small group" of people who still think seat belt laws should be repealed. Plenty of people are still fighting against motorcycle helmet laws. My question would be how big is that "small group"? 10% of the population? Bigger?

By now, the loudest voices have grown up with seatbelt rules. If you're, say, 45 or under, you either don't or barely remember a time before seatbelts. They're grandfathered into your view of freedom.

Motorcycle helmets still bafflingly aren't mandatory everywhere. So, that's new to a lot of people.

People that endlessly talk about "freedom" are really just people that hate anything new, or having to ingest and react to new information. I also think part of it is what someone called the American fragility to being told they're wrong. If you're told something is newly considered bad, and you never previously considered it bad, that means you were wrong, and you couldn't possibly have been wrong, so those calling it bad must be the ones who are wrong.

Weird. Hi, I'm Beamer, and I frequently find out I'm wrong because I misunderstood something, misread something, made a bad assumption about something, or just believed what was known to be true but then had new information be discovered. For example, I was wrong to think Jason Garrett wouldn't be terrible against the Broncos.

LordSteev wrote on Sep 16, 2021, 05:46:
For some reason, my fellow Americans have regressed into childhood and only feel comfortable electing 'father figures' well past their mental prime. Everyone puts an emphasis on 'being safe' these days, over being free, being independent, and having privacy. It's weird, especially from Democrats, who want to be progressive. You can't elect nursing home aged candidates and not expect to have some old school, nursing home problems and beliefs baked in. In the digital age, we are still electing candidates who didn't have a TV for a big part of their life. How is someone like that ever supposed to approach digital age problems like hacking and ransomware and companies being held hostage? It's like asking Trump to create a propulsion drive.

In the last election, we had two of our oldest candidates ever. It's mortifying.

But how can you be "free" if you aren't safe? Somehow some Americans think anything new is a slight to their freedom, which is also mortifying. We should be smarter than this, especially since vaccine mandates are as old, and American, as apple pie. But some Americans hold onto some perceived"freedom" so hard they're willing to let their neighbors die unnecessarily for it.

Reminds me of all the horrible takes that seatbelt laws destroyed our freedom. That was in the 80s. Everyone agrees those beliefs were moronic then...

umm...

Hattori Hanzō wrote on Sep 15, 2021, 16:13:
anti-vax deaths = good

pro-vax deaths = horrible tragedy

I don't think "good" is the word anyone would use, but every monster movie has someone that insists the monster doesn't exist, despite all the evidence, and ends up getting killed because he willfully walked directly into the monster's mouth while mocking anyone that tells him the monster is real.

That's what this is a record of.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 15, 2021, 15:28:
I ran into this anti-vaxxer remembrance site randomly yesterday and spent a couple of hours going down the rabbit hole.

Made me want to shave off my goatee (you'll see what I mean).

Sad.

I always recommend that, anyway.
Shave the goatee, don't wear thin metal rectangular sunglasses, don't wear wrap-around sunglasses if not doing anything athletic, and don't wear bootcut jeans.
Basically, don't look like the "tough" guy from a 1999 boy band, haha.

Most of the reviews of this game point out that Dishonored gave you tons of fun ways to kill but discouraged you from doing so, and that this game feels an apology for that in heavily encouraging killing

Xero wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 17:24:
Not much into time travel games but I've been playing the stand alone Dishonored game and it has been pretty enjoyable. Obviously not as epic in scope as Dishonored 2 but holds its own for a solid stand alone that I'm assuming will be rather short. I'm enjoying it a lot.

Waiting to hear more about this or just until it hits bargain bin before jumping into it. Similar to what I did with Dishonored. I'm honestly shocked how long I waited on Dishonored 2. It was very well made. Some of the best destruction physics in a game that were highly satisfying.

I still haven't played 2. Was enthralled by 1, but the second time through I liked it much less for some reason. Or maybe I didn't, but did the dlc and didn't like that.

I'll do it sometime. Would prefer a Prey 2, though.

The increase in Gadgetry, and the 30 year old head scientist of an intelligence agency, are why I stopped watching these Bond films.

The cartoonishness never worked for me, do I loved Casino Royale. But it's the only Craig Bond I really enjoyed. And as they get more cartoonish, they seem to clash with Craig.

The past 3 Mission Impossible movies are better than the Bond films. That's my line in the sand.

Laughing Man wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 01:08:
Imagine taking a website with a barely a gamer among them doing a rare review to only say it stinks and then thinking that website is the best review you can get.

Anyone who listens to ars technica on anything should probably rethink their standing in life. Let's not forget what Naste owned websites were before the Hogan lawsuit, they've barely improved.

This is the same website/reviewer that said Knockout City is the best game they've played in years.

Nast? It's Conde Nast. No one calls it Nast.
Hogan? You mean Hulk? That was Gawker.

You're confusing Ars with Kotaku. Except Kotaku has gamers on staff.

Basically, you seem angrily confused and factually incorrect.
Hogan lawsuit?

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 07:06:
If you were a PC gamer before Steam, you know what a godsend it is.

The horrors of praying that some retail outlet withing 100 miles of you would order the game you wanted and they would have it in stock when you drove all the way there. The awful pitifully small selection found in retail outlets like Gamestop (the PC section was a single two sided shoulder height rack.). The poser clerks basking in thier gatekeeper status, and sniffing disinterest if the game you inquire about is not on thier personal 10 best list.
Having to wade through throngs of grade schoolers stuck to the demo consoles.

Finding Jagged Alliance was so damn hard.

Simon Says wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 07:46:

#Classism

That's sarcasm, right?

It sucks, but if Alec Baldwin walks into any business he's getting better treatment and more leeway than anyone here. Him being there will bring in more business. Not so much us.

This, too, could be posted today:

Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2005, 12:13:
I still don't agree with people claiming that the internet connection requirement is a problem. It's Valve's game, it was late 2004 - requiring an internet connection is really not something to get very worked up over. Don't have one, can't play. Much like you couldn't if you didn't have a CD drive.

On the other hand, if playing in offline mode is as big of an issue as people are claiming, I can see that being a problem. Sometimes your internet is down. If you had to jump through hoops just to play I'd be a bit miffed, as it seems unnecessary.

I've had no issues with Steam, at all, and have actually been fairly happy with it. I'm not overjoyed, and wouldn't say I prefer it over it not being there, it just hasn't affected me one way or the other.

Steele Johnson wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 20:48:
I should go back through my BN comment history and see how I reacted. But whenever I start reading my old comments, it's like I'm reading comments from a completely different person 😂

Here's my third post mentioning Steam:

Beamer wrote on Oct 9, 2003, 11:37:
I love how that kid is dancing because he didn't like Steam.


If you don't like Steam don't buy the damn game.

Now he's hoping Valve loses money because of this? Smart. I'd assume you're a fan of HL, because people that don't like HL have no reason to care about Steam. But you're hoping Valve loses money, which would probably kill any chance of a decent HL3. So you hope something you don't like destroys a franchise you do?

Idiot.

90% certain you can replace all those nouns with Epic related ones and it'd look like something I posted this month

Fun fact: Garry from garrysmod is in that Steam thread

Rilcon wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 22:24:
Games being really old is a poor excuse for outright killing their online; there are people that, for one reason or another, center their lives around certain games, and there are people without financial resources that have "old game on 12 year old console" as their most valued possession.

Sony should have a service-wide solution to DDoSing in place, and they should have the capacity to have at least one guy go through old games with user submitted content once a week for any weird behaviour or bad shit.

I'm not surprised or disappointed that they don't, because I didn't expect it, particularly not from Sony. But oh well.

As explained in the post right before yours, this isn't about the DDOS but about the offensive messages someone is repeatedly hacking in.

At some point, moderation and patching just isn't worth it. For a game this old, who knows if anyone that even knows how to fix this is still around.

Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:59:

Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:46:

Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:

Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.

Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.

Walled gardens will be walled gardens. Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox all work the same way. None of those platforms will allow you to open a store inside of their store and not pay any commission to them, and even more so they won't let you open a store inside their store, not pay any commission to them for doing so, AND steal away products that would otherwise give them money by making them exclusives.

Apple is perfectly free to run their business the way they want to - a walled garden is not illegal. It just isn't what a chunk of the marketbase wants - including, it sounds like, you. That's fine, the market will regulate it based on what consumers want. Don't like Apple not allowing sideloading of other app stores, like you mention? Don't buy an Apple product. I don't like it, and I don't like how Apple runs their walled garden and how it restricts the ability for me to use my devices the way I want to - so I don't buy Apple products.

Nothing says anyone is entitled to be able to force their way into the market Apple created, particularly and especially in Apple's instance where they built it as a Walled Garden to begin with and have always advertised it as such. Under the law, what would have been illegal is if Apple was open when it first launched the App Store, and once it gained a billion customers then shuttered its doors and prevented anyone from competing. It didn't; Apple has actually glacially opened access to the App Store to developers.

What Epic and your argument is implying to support is: X company makes a product, gains a billion customers who like that product; now Y company wants to sell things to that billion customers using X company's store, infrastructure, and work without paying or doing anything for X company. No different from wanting to open a store inside of Giant using Giant's shelf space, advertising, and employees but not wanting to pay Giant anything while doing so. No company would do so. Epic's Store is only doing some opposite practices because it is entirely subsidized by Fortnite and they're trying to force ways to gain marketshare; guaranteed that if and when they have that majority marketshare their business model will change to enable it to be profitable. Just look at Epic's Unreal licensing and commission terms/model: they absolutely build it to make a profit, and will not allow you to use Unreal Engine for free to access Unreal Engine customers.

If you search my posts, I never had an issue with the walled garden. I said the steering rules would likely come down, and I was right. That, to me, feels fair.

But you criticized Epic at the tail end of your post, saying the only way they know how to compete with a store is via exclusives.

This was an odd gripe. For one, they literally cannot compete with the Apple store, so you can't say they only know one way when they are blocked from competing. And it felt odd to single them out for exclusives when several companies you mention pay for exclusives (Apple, Microsoft, Sony) and all of them require new hardware to get around, which, to me as a consumer, is infinitely more bothersome.

RogueSix wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 14:42:
The Ars review has nailed it with their verdict:

Verdict: Bethesda's biggest disappointment in years. Wait for a sale (or a "definitive" edition).

I'll wait for both. A sale of the definitive edition .

Have you played it?
The majority of reviews are overwhelmingly positive. What basis are you using to say they "nailed it?" First hand experience?

Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:

Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.

Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.

milspecmonkey wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 05:12:

Beamer wrote on Sep 12, 2021, 09:04:

Yup, you're a far right military cosplayer who can't stop whining about politics.

Don't see how you're not the mirror of what is offending you so much here.

"Guys, I need my tactical pants and ballistic eyewear in case the rainbow haired men invade us and steal our votes!"

Never called him normal. Will never call you other side of the coin normal. But at least he's adding value to some people's lives.

-Back to attempted personal attacks from the debate pro
-I'm not mid video game development with a fluff article about me
-We disagree on "value" when it comes to planning to make a political statement injected into a half-assed video game being content with the idea of being a financial disaster, likely spending mostly other people's money to do it.

And again, "Everyone who disagrees with me is far right" level of political assessment.

Your chosen battles are pretty hilarious,
This game dev situation is @HardDriveMag parody level WOKE, and you are over here ready to have a poo poo head name calling contest over it.

Wait a minute.

So it's ok for you to personally attack him for his hair, but not for me to treat you the same way due to your military cosplay?

Man, does the far right shoe fit for you. As soon as you're treated as you treat others, you cry victim.
Please consider getting those emotions in check. You're all over the place. The rest of us appreciate some rational, logical thinking. You just bring emotions - anger followed by being offended.

You're a walking cartoon. If you were in a movie as a Capitol insurrectionist people would think it was too far fetched that as perfect a stereotype existed.