User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Today - No Exclusive |
 |
| 51. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 03:08 |
Meezy |
|
|
Both parties in the deal. Period.
Ah, so your morales are that flexible. I see we have nothing in common then. It is quite personal that I have nothing more to say to you. You live your life by the songs sung in the first half of Disney's Aladdin and based on the movie Fight Club. Good for you.
Stealing = Stealing.
Bullying = Bullying.
You look out for you and you alone. At least it has come out. I now know where your side is coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Today - No Exclusive |
|
| 49. |
Re: Meezy Dude |
Aug 29, 2003, 03:04 |
Meezy |
|
|
A very well thought out post, so I will respond respectfully in kind.
I personally don't buy into "slippery slope" arguments. In this case the "slippery slope" double fails because there have been many exclusive demos in the past via magazines and what have you. So there is no slope to slide down in the first place.
My concern is the belief that everything should be free (as in beer). You (we all) already have the freedom of choice to subscribe to fileplanet or not. We have the freedom to wait for the demo or not. This website, and the collective, have bullyed Activision and Gamespy out of their rights.
This presents another slippery slope, but like I said above, I don't buy into that.
My fundamental belief. Leave everyone else alone. Pay if you want to pay. Don't pay if you don't want to, but then don't expect to get the same things as if you had payed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Today - No Exclusive |
|
| 43. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 02:59 |
Meezy |
|
|
For the record, the only pay site I subscribe to is TotalFark. I'm just a fan of freedom (as in libre). The crusade here seeks to reduce that for the sake of free (as in gratis).
But crusade on. You guys are the big winners.
Today. I hope noone on this board (or the board owner) ever tries to have a b2b relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Today - No Exclusive |
|
| 34. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 02:50 |
Meezy |
|
|
I'm more influential than W?
In this context, yes. The parties involved just fundamentally changed a situation that they had no right to change. If the government or Microsoft or anyone else had stepped in and forced this change we would all be offended. I am as offended that those who have no right to effected this. Do not be fooled, the webmasters alone are nothing. You zealous posts must have made the difference.
And do you realy think the extra hits generated any significant revenue? Maybe like 5-10$ extra, but so what. In perspective, thats almost nothing.
I "realy" do. Unless you have proof of this you should consider retracting this statement by editing your post. If you have proof you should edit your post and include it. Otherwise do not comment on things of which you cannot be certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 361. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 02:45 |
Meezy |
|
|
Have you seen Fight Club?
Wow, I was actually reading your posts with interest until this comment. You actually derive your philosophy from movies? Those are propaganda AT LEAST as much as any W speech. Respect for Rictor just hit an all time low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Today - No Exclusive |
|
| 20. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 02:36 |
Meezy |
|
|
Hey Blue, will the participating websites be carrying the demo now? Since it is no longer exclusive, I think you should.
I think that goes without saying.
After discussions with Activision, the following websites will not be carrying the Call of Duty playable demo, even after its exclusivity is over.
Whoa whoa whoa, hypocrisy alert. So the exclusivity deal ends Friday. I thought you and the other sites weren't going to carry it even then.
So lets recap: These sites get enormous hits on their message boards. This generates higher than usual ad revenue. The tides turn so now they seek to double up the revenue?
Just as I thought, its all about the $$$$. Duly noted.
For all the people who think you have won. Consider the following. You have just traded free (as in beer) for free (as in speech). Corporations (yes, these employ people) will now be considering the words of a few zealots in their actions. Sounds good, but in the long run all of you are now responsible for more freedom being eroded. More that W or any politician ever did. You just took away Activision's and Gamespy's freedom of association and market.
But hey, you win. Congrats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 344. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 01:53 |
Meezy |
|
|
No problem, and you can insult me if you want.
I work at the local movie theater while I am going through school. Some day, however, I want to have a business. And I want that business to be protected by the same constitution as I am.
Thats means freedom of association and free trade without government intervention and without zealtous websites forging some haphazard alliance against me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 339. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 01:41 |
Meezy |
|
|
This is the way the industry has worked for over ten years, and you purpose that now, when the games industry is making more money than ever, is the time to change this?
To be honest, I wasn't downloading demos prior to 1993. I got my demos from game magazines. Wait, thinking back I paid for those. Seems likes its the free demo that is actually the new creation...
And for the slow...Free(gratis, as in beer) = no charge.
Free(libre, as in speech) = freedom, can do whatever you want with it. So you want people to make stuff for your amusement that is both gratis and libre? Check. Thats a sure way to ensure nothing gets created.
Publisher releases the demo, available at the same time to anyone who wants to download. Gamers download. A percentage of those gamers buy the product, thus creating a return on the advertising investment.
There are two fundamental flaws in this logic. The percentage who buy the product vs download the demo online for free is likely > 100%. Also, its actually possible that a demo could discourage someone from buying a product.
Hey, keep trying to justify your zealotry though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 324. |
Love em, hate em |
Aug 29, 2003, 01:18 |
Meezy |
|
|
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is released for free = ACTIVISION RULES! WOO!
Call of Duty is exclusive to Fileplanet at first = ACTIVISION IS THE WORST PUBLISHER EVER. I NOW ADVOCATE STEALING ALL THEIR GAMES!
C'mon people, get a grip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 314. |
Re: Where is the FCC when we need them? |
Aug 29, 2003, 01:11 |
Meezy |
|
|
"To the people with no foresight who think things like this won't lead to worse, might I point you to either Gamespot or IGN who charge you to read reviews, watch videos and view images? It's only a matter of time, just look at history."
Yes, because paying for original content is such a crime against humanity. Blue's doesnt really generate any content. And that ok, they are great at what they do. Anyone who expects original content for free (as in beer) is either naive or a cheapskate.
And when you think about it, the user paying for content is BETTER than ad supported. If the user pays it keeps the content provider honest and accountable to the reader more than the publisher.
Which way do you want it? Oh thats right, ALL content free (gratis) AND free (libre). Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 303. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 29, 2003, 00:47 |
Meezy |
|
|
#1 If you state that its a free product, then it should be available, by definition, to everyone at the same time and under the same conditions, for free.
Thats free (as in beer (gratis)) and not free (as in speech(libre)). Its free in the sense there is no charge, not in the sense you can do anything you want with it. #1, right out.
#2 So you think that every gaming site should work out an exclusive? Maybe we can have 10 different demos, and the developers can spend 6 months getting all the exlusives ready. Get real. Or, they could release 1 demo, free of chare to everyone, and the EVERYONE is happy.
Nope, but if you don't want to work out a deal, don't whine. Thats the free (as in speech) market. If you pay for something you get something. Dont expect everything for free (as in beer).
#3 You suggest that these sites are harming the distribution of a free product? And Fileplanet, they're not? All of the above sites have always hosted demos for free, while Fileplanet requires you to pay for the same amount of convenience.
I was writing a parody of the letter, so I was proposing that the purpose was the threat of harming this distribution. Remember again, thats its free (gratis), not free (libre). Its free (gratis) for fileplanet subscribers, but not free (libre) to the world. A demo is still protected by copyright afterall...
Once again, let me repeat this. It is EXPECTED that demos are free. I don't care if Webster's defines it that way, that is the way the gaming public defines it, and has always defined it. And you suggest that we let a few greedy webmasters change that defintion? Demos, though they may be fun, are a merketing tool. They are not (or rarely) a service meant only to entertain the gaming public. The companies put out the demos so that people will buy their products. This is the same as paying money to watch a TV commerical.
And yet the still have commercials on cable TV. *cough* Have they said they won't release a demo for everyone? Lets face it, those sites, including blues, are out for the lost ad revenue because of this demo AND because of new fileplanet sign-ups that will make people leave the other download sites altogether. Protesting like this is trying to shut down their right to association and free (as in libre) trade. Do you support your right for free (as in beer) over your freedom (as in speech)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Demo Open Letter |
|
| 274. |
From the shot ourselves in the foot dept |
Aug 29, 2003, 00:04 |
Meezy |
|
|
Dear Activision:
We the owners/operators of the following websites do not care about our community:
3D Downloads
3D Gamers
AusGamers
Blue's News
EdgeFiles (Callofduty.org)
FileFront
FileShack
GameGossip
Gamer's Hell
Loadedinc
Tiscali Games
WorthPlaying
We have vowed never to host your Call of Duty Gamespy exclusive demo, despite the fact that it has never been mentioned by you or anyone that this file would become more widely available. We don't know if you intend to issue a different demo to the population at large, meaning that only this demo and not all demoes will be exclusive, but we are a reactionary lot and believe in mob rule and intimidation.
We have decided to go ahead and force everyone to Fileplanet. Yes they are our strongest competitor, and no you have not done anything illegal or disrespectful, but it is clearly in our best interest to give them as much traffic as possible. We are reacting out of fear, and also some envy.
Feedback from our users (a random sampling of the most hardcore gamers who sign-up for internet message boards so they have a place to complain all day) has shown to be single-minded, selfish, and short-sighted. Based on this input, it is clear we are doing the right thing.
We are definitely trying to hurt the distribution of this free product. We don't want to work out a deal ourselves for an exclusive, though this is likely possible. We expect everything for free.
We like the attention this brings because it generates a lot of hits, and therefore more ad revenue, expecially at blue's news which has just significantly upped the number of ads. We will use this to supplement the revenue we would earn from the extra traffic generated by YOUR demo which we refuse to pay for. The more times our sheeple refresh the pages, the better.
We also intend to dupe our respective readerships into joining our obviously self-serving crusade.
Sincerly,
The oversigned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Steam Powered Plans |
|
| 24. |
Re: Forced? |
Aug 27, 2003, 18:49 |
Meezy |
|
|
"In order to download bug fixes I have to download something... this is downright anti-American! Prepare for the lawsuit!" Yeah... that's a *strong* legal case. You're a true fighter for justice."
Well actually I'm drawing a comparison between how Valve is forcing Steam into your home in a way very similar to how MS forced IE into every Windows install. And wait, MS DID get sued for that. I think it sounds like a strong legal case. And with Steam I don't even have a choice to uninstall later. At least I can make Mozilla my default browser if I choose.
"I'm contacting my lawyer." Somehow I'm imagining that the only contact you have with a lawyer is your stack of X-rated Ally McBeal fan fiction scripts."
Wow insults. How mature. Doesn't green on this board mean you are a VIP or something? Whatever. If you can't add anything to the discussion other than insults I kindly request you keep them to yourself. I could get my name is green too, but I don't need the recognition to make myself feel important.
Wait, I just looked you up on Moby games. Sierra huh? No wonder you have such an emotional interest in this. Take a deep breath, I'm sure it will get sorted out in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Steam Powered Plans |
|
| 21. |
Forced? |
Aug 27, 2003, 14:41 |
Meezy |
|
|
I can't believe HL owners are being forced to download steam in order to keep their product up-to-date and receive bug fixes. This was not part of the original product when I purchased it. I am definitely contacting my lawyer about this one. It stinks of illegally leveraging Half-life to force people to use steam.
Hey, one of the founders of Valve did come from Microsoft didn't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty Goes Hollywood |
|
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 8, 2003, 13:51 |
Meezy |
|
|
One Gamer: The voice acting is terrible, it totally ruins the game.
Another Gamer: Why do they spend so much on getting these professional actors.
No wonder you think the developers don't know how to please you. YOU don't know what you want. If gamers ever figure it out, maybe then the games will get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Consolidation |
|
| 7. |
Re: Super VirtualBoy Advance? |
Aug 7, 2003, 11:55 |
Meezy |
|
|
Game and Watch SP. Same as the original Game and Watch, but the batteries are rechargable and not replaceable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Half-Life 2 Distribution & Mod Plans |
|
| 28. |
Re: STILL CONFUSED |
Aug 1, 2003, 20:16 |
Meezy |
|
|
The only thing that sucks is I can't load MODs or the Hammer editor for my halflife copy because it doesn't load all the files onto your computer. =(
That's exactly my issue. It is nice to be able to play games offline. Oh, and if Steam ever goes down, even for one day and you can't play a game you payed for cause its not all on your PC... don't bitch. That's exactly what you signed up for.
Oh, and involuntary patching. They control which version of the game you have. If they want you to test something for them, you don't get a vote. You play what they stream. Enjoy!
Edited for format.
This comment was edited on Aug 1, 20:18. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
26 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
