But if you are homeless and hungry and you go to a church and ask for a sandwich, they don't look at your skin color and say, "I'm sorry. You're not black. We have no sandwiches for you today". There's a subtle difference in the scenario you suggested. The reason the church might not feed "everybody" is because they simply don't have enough food/resources. Not because of somebody's skin color.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 2, 2020, 23:38:

Humble can do whatever they want with their money. They chose to donate money to black game developers. Is that going to end police violence in the United States? Of course not. Humble has donated to other groups in the past, today it's black game developers. Stop crying, snowflakes. In fact that was the whole point of Humble before it was even a storefront, donating to various causes. Also, they decided to publicly condemn violence and racism against the black community, which they are free to do.

So much white complaining could have been avoided by calling it Black Lives Matter Too, just so idiots didn't keep (deliberately or otherwise) misinterpreting the statement. It most definitely does NOT mean only black lives matter, stop your bullshit.

"But but, why not donate to all poor people!?!?" Where was this sentiment a week ago, or a year ago? It's amazing this shit only comes up when an entity donates to a disadvantaged segment of the population, as though one group getting some help today prevents somebody else getting help tomorrow. You're using crabs in a bucket logic. Go ask Sony or EA or Epic to donate to your group of choice, if it bothers you that much, don't criticize a drastically smaller company that actually puts some money out there.

Humble can do whatever they want with their money. Check!
I dont think anyone here said they couldn't. At least not me. All I stated was that it was a bit of an odd gesture.
The logic in your last paragraph is lost on me. I guess your trying to imply that nobody cares about poor people until a black person gets killed? That's a bizarre conclusion to draw out of my comments, but yeah, whatever. I was simply making a point about priorities. When you single out a single race of underprivileged people to bestow favors on it seems to me your guilty of the same thing you state that you are against. The donation is in the form of money. So, what group of people need money for education the most? Oh, it's poor people. All racism is wrong not just racism against one race.

He kind of has a point though. Are blacks the only race that are discriminated against? What about Asians? Where's their fund? Indians? Chinese? Japanese? Why even bring color into the realm of software development? I'm sure they had all kinds of different races working on all kinds of different software. So, are they going to print the race of every developer on new releases of software products? Then people can scream RACIST one more time when everybody doesn't buy the software because maybe it sucks? This just seems weird to me. ALL LIVES MATTER!

Stop dividing people through race. Give that 1 million dollars to POOR people, not black, not white, not asian, not chinese, not the green martians. Give it to underpriviledged POOR people.

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Feb 2, 2020, 15:09:
My understanding is that if you are a Warcraft 3 vet, the servers are being shut down and you have to play this POS going forward.

edit- noticed some others also pointed this out. This is the true crime here.

Agreed. I bought the original games. I haven't played them for awhile so I don't know how much truth there is to this claim. But if it's true it's one of the most disrespectful aspects of the new release.

EDIT: It looks like you can still play your original Warcraft III games online if you only update your installed version to a specific patch version.

[url=]https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/warcraft3/t/for-those-who-want-to-play-classic-warcraft-3/15598[/url]

So, all is not lost quite yet.

This comment was edited on Feb 2, 2020, 15:48.

DrEvil wrote on Feb 2, 2020, 13:26:

GinRummy wrote on Feb 2, 2020, 13:09:
So without actually trying to read 20,000 reviews, what is exactly wrong with it?

They outsourced the game and it shows.

Wow, I did not know this.

Simon Says wrote on Feb 2, 2020, 14:10:

GinRummy wrote on Feb 2, 2020, 13:09:
So without actually trying to read 20,000 reviews, what is exactly wrong with it?

In short:

- Removed a whole bunch of crucial features
- Playermade mods now Blizzard property ( cause DOTA success story )
- Broken promises / misrepresentation
- Original game now unplayable
- You're forced to buy the new shittier version

And I did not know this. Original Warcraft III is unplayable? Obviously your referring to the Battle.net multiplayer only. But if that's true (and I'm really hoping that it's not), that's absolutely horrible. The Internet has given the modern developer permission to rape the average hard-working gamer for life, over and over again. I was going to buy this in a couple of years when the newness wore off along with some of the new price. They better fix this up really fast if it's even possible or there will be no sale at all.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 20:35:

DukeFNukem wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 19:56:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 18:20:

DukeFNukem wrote on Jan 18, 2020, 23:42:
But how does popular use [...]

Popular use is the only way language is defined.

No, it just means a certain way of doing something is popular. And it seems butchering the English language in favor of slicing 1/10th of a nano-second off the time it takes to recognize the Internet as a specific entity is a popular thing to do at the moment. Well, at least according to Beamer and the article he is promoting.

Are we as a civilization really becoming this lazy? Wow.

Beamer is not "promoting" anything, it's whats happening.

And it has nothing to do with being lazy, language changes all the time.

That article is the most insane garbage I have ever read. And he posted a link to it for interested parties to read which means he accepts it as legit. And he wants others to accept it as truth. And if you "actually read" the article how can you not view it as being lazy? They're suggesting we stop using capital letters because of the time required to press the SHIFT key, FFS. Are you kidding me?

Bro, seriously. Long live "The One and Only Internet!" I am NOT the droids you're looking for. End of discussion.



This comment was edited on Jan 19, 2020, 23:00.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 18:20:

DukeFNukem wrote on Jan 18, 2020, 23:42:
But how does popular use [...]

Popular use is the only way language is defined.

No, it just means a certain way of doing something is popular. And it seems butchering the English language in favor of slicing 1/10th of a nano-second off the time it takes to recognize the Internet as a specific entity is a popular thing to do at the moment. Well, at least according to Beamer and the article he is promoting.

Are we as a civilization really becoming this lazy? Wow.

Beamer wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 16:19:

DukeFNukem wrote on Jan 18, 2020, 23:42:
But how does popular use change the definition of what a proper noun is? There is still only 1 Internet that I'm aware of.

Now if the headline read "How an internet helped crack...." then the lowercase spelling would make more sense. But it would also imply the existence of more than one Internet, which we all know is false.

When you're referring to a specific person place or thing it is capitalized. That's what a proper noun is. I'm not sure what premise you are putting forth by letting us know that the British are doing it a different way. I'm sorry but the British do not get to define what a proper noun is. Because, we already have a definition.

There's only one atmosphere, but no one uses caps for it. Only one universe, but the same.

Being a grammar Nazi is great, except for when you're wrong, haha. Nearly every style guide changed it. Not the Brits, the American style guides. I mean, you can insist upon doing it the way you've always known, but even as an old dog, I prefer to learn new tricks, rather than arguing that what I'd been taught and assumed was right must always be right.

As I stated in my original post, I'm not really a grammar Nazi. The facts in question aren't weather or not the term Internet is being used more generically than it was in the past. But by the traditional definition of what a proper noun is, it's still a proper noun. This logic is not really hard to grasp but you seem to keep missing the point.

You stated that's it not a proper noun and then backed that assertion up with a statement regarding style guides and British America. I'm not sure how that logic works. If global cultures want to change the definition of what a proper noun is so that they can spell internet without getting feedback from me, they need to start there first.

Use the term as you will, I'll always see our Internet as "The One and Only" until I see lot's of little internets all running around in diapers. I thought we called those LANs. But what do I know?



UPDATE: Oh my God. This is the silliest *#$^ I've ever read. Thank you for showing me the link.

"The fact is, decapitalizing internet is part of a universal linguistic tendency to reduce the amount of effort required to produce and process commonly used words. Not only does decapitalization save a click of the shift key, but, as one marketing website put it, “Capital letters are speed bumps for the eyes when reading. They should be eliminated where possible.”"

I understand now. It takes to much effort to hold down the SHiFT key for all of 1 billionth of a second. And capital letters are SPEED bumps? Oh My God. I understand now. Thank You Beamer!!!!

I can't wait for the day when capital letters are a relic of our past!

*face palm*

This comment was edited on Jan 19, 2020, 17:07.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 08:33:
I'm not sure which is more pointless -- our political threads or ones like this.

Oh but there was a point to be made and I made it. Trivial in the grand scheme of life and the universe? Absolutely. But a point was made, none the less. Maybe pointless was not exactly what you meant to say?

This is a gaming website for God's sake. Does everything have to be a discussion about something that "truly" matters in life?

But how does popular use change the definition of what a proper noun is? There is still only 1 Internet that I'm aware of.

Now if the headline read "How an internet helped crack...." then the lowercase spelling would make more sense. But it would also imply the existence of more than one Internet, which we all know is false.

When you're referring to a specific person place or thing it is capitalized. That's what a proper noun is. I'm not sure what premise you are putting forth by letting us know that the British are doing it a different way. I'm sorry but the British do not get to define what a proper noun is. Because, we already have a definition.

This comment was edited on Jan 18, 2020, 23:57.

The Internet is a proper noun. Not a generic term. There is only 1 in existence at the moment.

I'm the not grammar police but let's give the Internet the respect and recognition that it deserves.

This is my thought also. They're catching and banning 100k players a week and they can't figure out how to reduce that number? FFS?

To prove somebody is cheating they must know how it's being done. I wonder if any of those 100k a week bans are false-positives? That number would scare the hell out of me if I played this game. I might get banned wrongly just looking at the odds.

But again, at these ban rates, after 1 year, they will have banned 1.2M 4.8M players. How can you have that much data and not be able to stop it?

How can you not plug those cheating strategies after so much time and not blame yourself for banning 100k players a week?

What happened to 3 strikes and your out?

Final thoughts: Glad, I never bothered playing this game. Maybe in 5 years when they get it together.

This is like Wal-Mart not locking their doors at night and then arresting people when, surprise, they find them inside stealing stuff. Lock the doors idiots!

This comment was edited on Dec 20, 2019, 17:27.

Quinn wrote on Sep 6, 2019, 10:28:
Tried it again now after not feeling it hours in, months ago. Made it about an hour or two in before quiting. Probably going to delete it again this weekend.

I'm just not feeling it. The graphics are off and the humor doesn't play the right strings.

The graphics looks absolutely amazing in the trailer. My jaw dropped to the floor. How are the graphics "off"?

"Eventually all of our games will be safely in the cloud too and we'll feel great about it."

I love how he makes this statement as though it's fact. It couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not comfortable giving YOU or ANYBODY ELSE control of anything I should be in control of. A 3TB hard disk cost $69.00 on sale these days. Why do I need to give you control of my content?

I'll classify his comment as a "conditioning statement" for the younger generations who will freely and willingly give up all control of their lives in the name of convenience.

"The games you buy on Stadia are yours to play." For as long as they say you can. And not a moment longer.

PASS! I trust Steam more than these people when they make silly statements like that.

Jonjonz wrote on Mar 23, 2019, 06:35:
Anytime a "new" store opens in my neighborhood, if the most positive selling point the proprietors can put foreword is that their store "is good for competition" instead of their products value to the consumer, I pass.

Your argument sounds like it's more about the game client's value to you versus the games and the prices of those games. That's a valid gripe. But remember they just started so the EGS client will get better I'm sure. So, the fact is that competition is good for the consumer always if there is true competition.

We see that good healthy competition between AMD and Intel right now. As the EGS software gets better over time the pressure will increase on all other digital services.

This comment was edited on Mar 23, 2019, 11:14.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 20, 2019, 04:29:

Remember Onlive? $5 per month, and the price of the games were MSRP.

What we need is unlimited games for $30 per month or something to be viable. Not gonna happen.

$30 a month for unlimited games? I can buy a game for $30 and play it for a year. In fact, I could probably buy about 6 games for $30 in a Humble Bundle or Fanatical sale and own them for life. Why don't you just drop yer pants and scream, "HERE I AM DISNEY/Google. HERE I AM!"

HoSpanky wrote on Mar 19, 2019, 18:27:
Those with fiber can run stuff like this just fine. The Nvidia streaming service works shockingly well, although artifacts are noticeable. The response time is pretty fantastic.

It’s not good enough for pro gaming, but that’s the area this sort of thing would be best put...cheating is dead at that point.

I have friends who have several kids, so this sort of service appeals to them. Building one rig and keeping it up to date is one thing...building five is another.

Buy 5 Hades Canyon i7 NUCs for these kids. It should be good for at least 5 years. Then you will own a NUC versus having spent as much money in subscription fee's over a 5 year period and owning nothing. The cost of technology is cheaper than it ever has been across the board these days. It's not like your going to have to tailor each NUC for each kid.

Bill Borre wrote on Mar 19, 2019, 16:22:
I was just thinking yesterday how nice it would be if I could play the games in my Steam library without having to install them. I wonder if they'll ever follow suit with something like this.

What would be so nice about it? The idea to unnecessarily burden the entire Internet so that big publishing companies can milk you for life would be nice?

Even if the physics and AI are handled on a more capable system in the cloud, you'll still have to download all the static assets of the game. Graphics, sounds, in-game video cut-scenes.

It would be completely stupid to stream static assessts on a 100% on-demand basis.

*raises his hand*. Yep, I'm guilty. You have an anti-vaxxer here. I like the way you phrase it as though I'm the only one. That's pretty smooth.

Your theory of solving the problem would be fine with me.

But why did you say "no help from any medical professional" as though every physician on the planet believes in vaccines? Smooth.

Why couldn't I ask for help from a holistic physician? Why are you suggesting that vaccines are the ONLY way to prevent dying from any disease that a vaccine has been specifically developed for? Does the development of a vaccine for a specific disease automatically invalidate all other methods of preventing/curing that same disease? By "fucking magic" to quote you?

Nobody I know has Swine Flu either. In spite of the fact that the majority of people "shunned" getting the vaccine to protect against it. So, I guess that happened by "fucking magic"(Copyright (C) 2019) 'HoSpanky') also. It's a crazy world we live in, huh?

86% of Generation-X Refuses Swine Flu Shot

One last question if I may. Why can't anti-vaxxers(shame on them) have contact with healthy people who have been vaccinated? I thought the whole purpose of the shot was so that you could develop immunity to the disease before being exposed to it? If anyone should feel bulletproof it's people who have been injected with the vaccines, yes? Sounds like your faith isn't up to where it needs to be. I guess it's the vaccine and a few hail mary's to make you feel really good about it.



This comment was edited on Feb 16, 2019, 21:27.

Here go again. We're all gonna die. And I thought climate change was gonna kill us all first. The propaganda never stops, exploiting every case, pushing vaccines on people like cotton candy at a circus. Anti-vaxxers have no shame? What are you trying to shame them for.

If Kara Krause's personal story is true then how is it shameful to educate the public at large about the dangers of vaccines?


100 cases of measles diagnosed, 50 of those 100 "sickened by the disease". None of the 50 dead as far as I know.

More people have probably died from the flu than this outbreak. 100 cases out of 300 million Americans and this is supposed to make me think vaccine makers are the new savior of mankind in the 21st century? GTFOH!

Botulism is something to be afraid of and take seriously. When people start dropping dead like flies, let me know. Then I'll rethink my stance on vaccines.

I'll be watching the death toll from this "pandemic" as I always do. My prediction? 0 deaths, again.

Big pharma likes big money. I guess their profits aren't as high lately.

This comment was edited on Feb 15, 2019, 21:25.