Hellcinder wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 15:32:
I've been hammered quite a bit for this view, but why does Apple (Google, Microsoft, Steam, name your leach here) deserve 30% of anything for products they don't produce?

The infrastructure argument is swiss cheese also, because if you need 30% to keep yourself afloat, you're doing something very wrong.

I mean, it's not ENTIRELY swiss cheese, otherwise these people wouldn't be leeching off Apple/Google/Microsoft/Steam/etc. for the infrastructure development and upkeep they've done, as well as building the user base. Is 30% too high? Probably! Is 0% too low? Probably! I mean, Apple's likely going to have to start charging developers for a LOT of things they were just giving away for free before if this holds. Testflight, store listings, etc.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying Apple is entirely in the right, but to say you don't have to give them ANY money at ALL for ANY of their architecture/infrastructure/development that you as a software developer haven't paid a dime for? C'mon.

Insomniac actually did excellent jobs with both Spider-Man and Miles Morales, so I have high hopes for both of these.

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 25, 2021, 17:01:

Tyrric wrote on Aug 25, 2021, 16:37:
Why "Suns" and not "Sons", like they were in the comics?

That's what I was thinking. I mean I'm a bit out of touch with Marvel since they did their reboot... but is that Ghost Rider? Also I see Wolverine and Captain Marvel also in the game..... um..... why besides to sell more units?

I'd just like a straight up Marvel Universe game in the style of XCOM 2. You could DLC the shit out of it with different super hero groups and stories.

That's the Robbie Reyes version of Ghost Rider. Johnny Blaze was ruling hell for a while, so he'd not been doing as much Ghost Riding.

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 5, 2021, 13:51:
Murky Foot, Bulldog, Maxis, Origin, Westwood and a few others might disagree EA....

I think you meant Bullfrog. You also forgot: Mythic Entertainment, Criterion, Dreamworks Interactive, Bioware, Headgate, Playfish, Chillingo, Phenomic...

The list goes on and on and on....

Cutter wrote on Jul 23, 2021, 15:16:

jdreyer wrote on Jul 23, 2021, 12:34:
This is a different tone compared to their aggressive response yesterday:

The DFEH includes distorted, and in many cases false, descriptions of Blizzard’s past. We have been extremely cooperative with the DFEH throughout their investigation, including providing them with extensive data and ample documentation, but they refused to inform us what issues they perceived. They were required by law to adequately investigate and to have good faith discussions with us to better understand and to resolve any claims or concerns before going to litigation, but they failed to do so. Instead, they rushed to file an inaccurate complaint, as we will demonstrate in court. We are sickened by the reprehensible conduct of the DFEH to drag into the complaint the tragic suicide of an employee whose passing has no bearing whatsoever on this case and with no regard for her grieving family. While we find this behavior to be disgraceful and unprofessional, it is unfortunately an example of how they have conducted themselves throughout the course of their investigation. It is this type of irresponsible behavior from unaccountable State bureaucrats that are driving many of the State’s best businesses out of California.

They're not entirely wrong. California is a gong show these days. Homelessness and poverty run amok, rampant legal crime, etc. Businesses and people are leaving.

Big warning signs for Gavin Newsom in latest California recall poll

Yes, because California is the only state in the union with rampant legal crime. Oh wait, no, that's all the states. And the recall poll is mostly a bunch of anti-vaxxers stating they shouldn't have to wear masks. The guy's not great, but he's far from the worst governor in the country.

RogueSix wrote on Jul 8, 2021, 14:38:

Pineapple Ferguson wrote on Jul 8, 2021, 13:50:
I've held off this long, I can wait a few more years for all the bug fixes and DLC before I pick it up.

Same here. I stopped supporting their Early Access business model after The Witcher 2. They pulled off the Enhanced Edition trick twice with The Witcher and The Witcher 2. Thanks but no thanks. I bought TW3 GOTY on sale and I will do the same with Cyberpunk 2077 once all expansions and patches have been released. I do not wish to support this patching marathon business model. I would prefer a feature and content complete game on release. Bugfree is a pipe dream because of the complexity of modern video games but feature and content complete is a buy or no buy criteria for me.

You'll have an excellent game at that point. The PC release had some bugs, but was still one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences I've had in years, and I'm eagerly awaiting more content for the game.

Orogogus wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 05:41:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:14:

Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:16:
As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket.

Then maybe you didn't pay anywhere near as much attention as you think you did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14474198/oculus-lawsuit-verdict
https://www.vg247.com/2018/12/12/zenimax-facebook-oculus-settlement/

They're all in violation of the NDA, and of copyright infringement. If you think Zenimax's case is garbage, then I'm not sure how you're supporting the $250mil in payouts that came from them, 100 mil of which came from Facebook. Oculus pushed to try and have it dismissed multiple times. It never was. In the end, they settled. I wish I lived in your world where you think losing $100 mil of your employer's money isn't grounds for termination.

I didn't say I supported the payouts; I think Zenimax should have lost. I think they got an expert to lie on the stand about Carmack destroying the data on his hard drive, and about "non-literal" copying of data. They tried to get an injunction to stop Oculus from selling headsets, implying that those sales would hurt sales of a Zenimax VR headset, which they claimed to have spent tens of millions of dollars on in development -- I think that's a load of horseshit coming from a software company that hasn't remotely suggested coming out with any VR headset five years after the supposed IP theft. They said they hated to go to litigation, which I also think is a blatant falsehood.

In the original verdict, $300M came from Facebook; plus $50M from Luckey and $150 from Iribe. All that was cut in half (assumedly in the same ratio?), and then they settled. So if Carmack, Luckey and Iribe were all in violation, how come only one of them got fired? Supposedly the verdict proved that Carmack did some pretty heinous things (again, I don't agree). All three of them were there for the NDA. If anything the original payouts suggested that Iribe was more at fault, and he was the CEO.

Except, of course, if it was "blatant falsehood" and they could prove it in court, it's highly unlikely they would've settled. So now, in addition to everything else in this thread, you're arguing you're a better lawyer than FB had. Which is, let's be honest, extremely unlikely.

Iribe left around the time the settlement was announced. John Carmack is JOHN CARMACK, and is probably worth the hassle, for the technical knowledge in his brain alone. And Palmer Luckey has been making life miserable for Facebook since Occulus was acquired. Is it possible it figured into the termination? Sure. Is it possible Palmer Luckey was just generally an asshole around the office and that figured into the termination? Sure. Is it possible the fact that dozens of studios were refusing to work with Occulus because their founder was someone who said they didn't deserve basic human rights figured highly into it? Sure. The WSJ story you're continually citing also said the emails they obtained repeatedly pointed to Luckey's lack of transparency to his bosses in regards to his day-to-day work, which had been steadily decreasing since the acquisition. Does THAT figure into it? Yeah, you bet your ass it does. Is it possible that there were dozens, if not hundreds of things that went into the consideration? Absolutely.

But again, we're back to this original point of you claiming that it had to be his political reasons that got him fired, Facebook claiming it wasn't his political opinions that got him fired, and no statement from anyone post the settlement regarding the matter. The lawyer's claim you keep falling back on occurred before the trial, and is backed by no actual evidence. The WSJ article states that FB was pressuring Luckey to support Gary Johnson, specifically because his constant support of Trump was hurting their partnerships with other companies. But FB has come out a dozen times post this and said, repeatedly, that he wasn't fired for his conservative views, and I've provided you several other options, all of which likely figured into the matter, if not were in fact the crux of the matter. If Palmer Luckey thought he could prove that he was fired for political reasons, don't you think he would've proven that publicly in a court of law, to have it on the record, so he could talk about it for the rest of his life?

Again, you're picking and choosing which specious argument to believe.

Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:16:
As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket.

Then maybe you didn't pay anywhere near as much attention as you think you did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14474198/oculus-lawsuit-verdict
https://www.vg247.com/2018/12/12/zenimax-facebook-oculus-settlement/

They're all in violation of the NDA, and of copyright infringement. If you think Zenimax's case is garbage, then I'm not sure how you're supporting the $250mil in payouts that came from them, 100 mil of which came from Facebook. Oculus pushed to try and have it dismissed multiple times. It never was. In the end, they settled. I wish I lived in your world where you think losing $100 mil of your employer's money isn't grounds for termination.

Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 15:51:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 15:08:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 17:09:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:
Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

Right, except that FB wasn't firing Palmer because of what he'd said. They were firing him because there were an overwhelming number of developers unwilling to work with FB because of Palmer specifically supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals. Those companies have every right to choose not to do business with FB, and FB has every right to remove an employee who is costing them business, and his opinions were costing FB a lot of business partnerships. They weren't firing him for his political views. They were firing him because he was driving away income. The fact that it was political was tangential to the capitalism of it all. As the saying goes, "don't fuck with the money."

Also, he received his golden parachute because literally every high ranking person in the Silicon Valley gets their golden parachute.

And, once again, to my point on consistency, I still don't see you up in arms about Colin Kapernick, who was fired from the NFL for his political views.

You were addressing the Colin Kaepernick issue to other people, and I take exception to your tone. I think it's wrong to fire people for non-job performance reasons, and I agree with the point he was making. I think the people who complained about him have absurd double standards about patriotism when a lot of those people also celebrate the Confederacy, literally a treasonous cause that disrespects the American flag. I'd be up in arms, but I don't know anything about whether or not Kaepernick was any good at his job, or whether or not his unemployment status is unusual.

The Wall Street Journal says specifically that Luckey's $100M payout came after he lawyered up, and the attorney argued it was an illegal firing for political views -- according to Wikipedia, anyways; I don't have access to the article. There are other sources like Engadget and Inc, but I think they all trace to the WSJ article.

I don't believe you can evade anti-discrimination laws by saying that customers, vendors or employees are uncomfortable. If you fire a black employee because his race is driving away customers, then you're in violation. Otherwise these laws would have no bite whatsoever no matter how much proof you have of discrimination -- just find one bigot who says they won't deal with the company, wave the flag of capitalism, bam. Since political views are protected in California, I don't believe this any different. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Do you have a cite for Palmer "supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals"? If you're inferring that because of his Trump support, then I believe that's a political view.

Luckey's held fund raisers for Ted Cruz, who has, among other things:

• voted against public health care
• voted against gay marriage
• voted against a woman's right to choose
• voted against net neutrality

So, when you're in the tech industry, choosing to be against the very people you work with having basic human rights seems like, well, that can lead to most of the companies refusing to work with you. There's a pretty fundamental difference between calling something "a political view" and saying "I believe you do not deserve basic human rights." And we aren't talking customers, we're talking other companies, which seems to be the thing you aren't grasping. This isn't like a handful of people refusing to use Facebook because they don't like Palmer Luckey. This is dozens of multimillion dollar corporations looking at possible VR development partners and going, "Yeah, we're going to go with the company that doesn't employ someone who says I'm less of a person than he is."

But, even more relevant to the issue at hand, that STILL isn't likely the reason Palmer Luckey was let go from Facebook. The most likely reason he was fired from Facebook has something to do with the fact that Zenimax won a $500 million dollar lawsuit over Oculus for stealing proprietary information. You're welcome to read about that here: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-reason-palmer-luckey-was-fired-from-facebook/ Guess who the loser of that $500 mil was? You guessed it -- Facebook, who owns Oculus.

Luckey can claim whatever reason he wants to that he was fired, but half a billion dollars speaks pretty loudly. It's also entirely possible that Luckey had a clause guaranteeing him indemnity from any past business dealings, which is why he got the $100mil payout, but the WSJ article jumps to the conclusion it wants to without supporting evidence, because none of the parties have said anything post the settlement, which is normal for the settlement. The WSJ article uses, and I'd argue speciously, the argument that since the lawyer said that in public before hand it was political, it must've been, since he got a settlement. Which is nonsense, and fundamentally misunderstands how legal settlements work, something I find rather suspect coming from the WSJ.

As for Colin Kaepernick, I am glad to see you're willing to concede that point, and thank you. According to the stats, Kaepernick was one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL, and when he was let go from the 49ers, nobody else picked up his contract, specifically for political reasons.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 17:09:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 04:40:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

Right, except that FB wasn't firing Palmer because of what he'd said. They were firing him because there were an overwhelming number of developers unwilling to work with FB because of Palmer specifically supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals. Those companies have every right to choose not to do business with FB, and FB has every right to remove an employee who is costing them business, and his opinions were costing FB a lot of business partnerships. They weren't firing him for his political views. They were firing him because he was driving away income. The fact that it was political was tangential to the capitalism of it all. As the saying goes, "don't fuck with the money."

Also, he received his golden parachute because literally every high ranking person in the Silicon Valley gets their golden parachute.

And, once again, to my point on consistency, I still don't see you up in arms about Colin Kapernick, who was fired from the NFL for his political views.

wrlwnd wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 13:07:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

I hate to be the grownup in the room, but this is how 90% of employment works, and if you've got a problem with that, you've got a problem with capitalism, friend! Because these are the rules you've established, and you're okay with them! Firing someone because they're black or gay is discrimination, if you can prove it, and you're more than welcome to look at the last, oh, hundred or so years of employment law cases and see exactly how hard that's been to prove. Usually it's been provable because some idiot was dumb enough to write it down. What you're arguing is that all terminations should be "for cause," and you should take a long look into what that entails if you go down that route. I'm not saying it's the wrong route to take. What I'm saying is that this is the state of the game as it stands today. And, again, I don't see you bringing up this argument in relation to Colin Kapernick, so, maybe consider how consistent (or in this case, not) you're being across the board.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 04:40:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 22:52:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 21:21:
Except I didn't do any of those things. Did you see me do any of those things? You're painting a broad brush over everyone, in a way I don't think makes any sense. I'm pointing out, and fairly so I feel, that when people decided they're the only one who are entitled to rights, they deserve to be called out on their bullshit. I'm pointing out, as I have time and again, that people aren't demonizing the people who voted Republican, they're demonizing the Republican congressional members. Based on their actions, y'know, like lying about the election being fraudulent, or trying to prevent minorities from voting, or preventing LGBTQ+ folks from getting married or healthcare. You know. BASIC. HUMAN. RIGHTS.

The real question I'm asking you right now is are you okay with them doing that on your behalf? Are you okay with your congressmen and congresswomen telling blacks they shouldn't have the right to vote? Are you okay with telling people that if they're sick, they should just fall over and die? Because if you are, then yes, you personally are the kind of person who is being demonized. On the basis of your actions, and that you do not believe that every American deserves the same rights, which is the most unAmerican thing imaginable.

I genuinely don't believe that's 90% of Republicans. I'm just trying to understand why many don't seem to want to do anything about it.

The specific issue I brought up was Palmer Luckey, and how Facebook let him go, ostensibly because he donated $10,000 to a Trump PAC. I don't believe that he wrote or said anything offensive. As Beamer described it, he deserved to be let go for supporting someone who wanted to take away people's rights. And as I said, I think that could be any of the 74 million voters who wanted Trump to win.

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 20:42:
MrDevinoch, Thank You
If you're ever out in West Texas I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee and a hot dog. Same to you Beamer

You'll be fine out here, it's extremely hot and neither one of y'all are snowflakes.

Never been to Texas, but if I find myself out that way, maybe I'll take you up on the offer. I grew up in Nebraska, lived in Las Vegas and currently live in the Bay Area of California. This us and them mentality has always been used to make smaller groups out of the biggest group of all, the one that the capitalists have been robbing blind for centuries. Some day we as a country will get our heads around that, and we'll have a revolution much like the French did a few hundred years ago. I suspect that time's coming sooner than some folk realize.

There's a reason I wear a guillotine pendant.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 20:34:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 19:49:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 16:30:
What I think is that this kind of attitude is going to lose the next presidential election and a bunch of smaller ones, because you and a lot of other liberals are out to punish anyone who voted for the guy who won in 2016. I think Trump would have walked the 2020 election if it wasn't for COVID-19. Treating him like a fringe candidate, and people who support him like terrorists and sex offenders, does nothing but shrink the tent and feed the "Orange man bad" memes. Palmer walked away fine, but a lot of the right-wing base of white, non-college educated men is looking at poorer and poorer job prospects every generation, and what they see is left-wing elitists, the flyover country lol crowd, shoving people out of their jobs for voting Republican. It doesn't win elections or win over anyone's mind, it just demonstrates a vindictive refusal to work with the other 47% of the populace.

So if you're complaining about poorer job prospects... why the hell are you Republican? No offense, but this constant demonization of "the left" as the people responsible for the death of the working class is a fundamental misreading of, well, reality. Capitalism is your enemy, friend, and the people who are responsible for that? They aren't leftists. Hell, they aren't even fundamentally right-wingers first and foremost - they're capitalists. Capitalists tend, on the trend, to be Republican leaning, and Loser 45 is one of those in every sense of the word - he wasn't Republican, he was a con-man capitalist. The Republican party did everything they could to get rid of him until it became clear that the con was working, and then, like all good capitalists, they looked for ways to profit off of it. He was treated like a fringe candidate because everyone underestimated the gullibility of the masses. He didn't make things better for the working class; he raised their taxes. He didn't make things harder on "the rich elite," because he's one of them, so he lowered their taxes. He had four years to show that he had any sort of plan for anything, and yet, nothing. People didn't make jokes about him because they needed to. They made jokes about him because it was all anyone could do to stop from crying in horror.

People aren't being shoved out of their jobs for voting Republican; they're being shoved out of their jobs for attempting to repress minority rights, for attempting to codify their beliefs that anyone with a different sexual orientation, a different skin color, a different ethnotype, a different geographical historical background, a different religious upbringing, that anyone who isn't them doesn't deserve the same rights they themselves insist upon.

I don't laugh at the flyover crowd. I grew up in the Midwest and left partially because I was tired of so many people acting like "the others" in America didn't deserve equal rights. And yet any time I ask my opponents why they're against these people having the same rights as them, they deflect, they pivot, they argue that religion's involved, when the country was founded with a separation of church and state.

Maybe try being a human first, and learning to understand your opponents.

I'm not a Republican, and learning to understand opponents is exactly what this is about. Biden narrowly won the popular vote 51-47 after Trump colossally mishandled the pandemic. Just how secure is the Democratic advantage that it's okay to demonize everyone who voted Republican? What gains do the Democrats have to show in the red states? It's well and good to point out that the right isn't actually on the side of the undereducated working class, but calling those same people terrorists and hatemongers - or a basket of deplorables - and clamoring to fire public figures for voting or donating the same way they did, is going to be a stronger message than any facts, and I think it's a message that's going to stick for more than one or two election cycles.

Except I didn't do any of those things. Did you see me do any of those things? You're painting a broad brush over everyone, in a way I don't think makes any sense. I'm pointing out, and fairly so I feel, that when people decided they're the only one who are entitled to rights, they deserve to be called out on their bullshit. I'm pointing out, as I have time and again, that people aren't demonizing the people who voted Republican, they're demonizing the Republican congressional members. Based on their actions, y'know, like lying about the election being fraudulent, or trying to prevent minorities from voting, or preventing LGBTQ+ folks from getting married or healthcare. You know. BASIC. HUMAN. RIGHTS.

The real question I'm asking you right now is are you okay with them doing that on your behalf? Are you okay with your congressmen and congresswomen telling blacks they shouldn't have the right to vote? Are you okay with telling people that if they're sick, they should just fall over and die? Because if you are, then yes, you personally are the kind of person who is being demonized. On the basis of your actions, and that you do not believe that every American deserves the same rights, which is the most unAmerican thing imaginable.

I genuinely don't believe that's 90% of Republicans. I'm just trying to understand why many don't seem to want to do anything about it.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 16:30:
What I think is that this kind of attitude is going to lose the next presidential election and a bunch of smaller ones, because you and a lot of other liberals are out to punish anyone who voted for the guy who won in 2016. I think Trump would have walked the 2020 election if it wasn't for COVID-19. Treating him like a fringe candidate, and people who support him like terrorists and sex offenders, does nothing but shrink the tent and feed the "Orange man bad" memes. Palmer walked away fine, but a lot of the right-wing base of white, non-college educated men is looking at poorer and poorer job prospects every generation, and what they see is left-wing elitists, the flyover country lol crowd, shoving people out of their jobs for voting Republican. It doesn't win elections or win over anyone's mind, it just demonstrates a vindictive refusal to work with the other 47% of the populace.

So if you're complaining about poorer job prospects... why the hell are you Republican? No offense, but this constant demonization of "the left" as the people responsible for the death of the working class is a fundamental misreading of, well, reality. Capitalism is your enemy, friend, and the people who are responsible for that? They aren't leftists. Hell, they aren't even fundamentally right-wingers first and foremost - they're capitalists. Capitalists tend, on the trend, to be Republican leaning, and Loser 45 is one of those in every sense of the word - he wasn't Republican, he was a con-man capitalist. The Republican party did everything they could to get rid of him until it became clear that the con was working, and then, like all good capitalists, they looked for ways to profit off of it. He was treated like a fringe candidate because everyone underestimated the gullibility of the masses. He didn't make things better for the working class; he raised their taxes. He didn't make things harder on "the rich elite," because he's one of them, so he lowered their taxes. He had four years to show that he had any sort of plan for anything, and yet, nothing. People didn't make jokes about him because they needed to. They made jokes about him because it was all anyone could do to stop from crying in horror.

People aren't being shoved out of their jobs for voting Republican; they're being shoved out of their jobs for attempting to repress minority rights, for attempting to codify their beliefs that anyone with a different sexual orientation, a different skin color, a different ethnotype, a different geographical historical background, a different religious upbringing, that anyone who isn't them doesn't deserve the same rights they themselves insist upon.

I don't laugh at the flyover crowd. I grew up in the Midwest and left partially because I was tired of so many people acting like "the others" in America didn't deserve equal rights. And yet any time I ask my opponents why they're against these people having the same rights as them, they deflect, they pivot, they argue that religion's involved, when the country was founded with a separation of church and state.

Maybe try being a human first, and learning to understand your opponents.

Quinn wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 12:03:
Most others define being canceled as getting fired for particular reasons, or getting an insane amount of pressure to resign, or having your reputation utterly destroyed for something utterly ridiculous -- often causing you to have a hard time finding a new job.

Oh, you don't mean cancelling, you mean "accountability." You mean being held accountable for the things you say and do.

Yeah, that's not cancelling, kiddo. That's grown up life.

Employers are under no obligation to retain you, and California is an at-will employment state. And guess what? Consumers are under no obligation to support companies that employ people who do and say horrific things. So when companies feel like someone is more trouble than they're worth, those people are held accountable for their actions and are let go.

It's also very telling that in your argument about cancel culture, you don't mention Colin Kapernick, and aren't demanding the NFL put him on a team immediately.

Icewind wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 03:42:
I hope this scares these SJW-ified geek girls that back-doored their way into the hobby and were coerced (read: brainwashed) into hating white males and conspiring to cancel them out of the industry. You can laugh if you want, but it's the truth and there have been talks for years amongst the good people in this industry on who will have the guts and the money to fight back at them.

You're right - most of the people in this industry want to laugh at you, except it's just so pathetic, we only feel sorry for you instead.

Bishi wrote on Jun 28, 2021, 04:41:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 28, 2021, 02:13:

Bishi wrote on Jun 27, 2021, 19:14:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 27, 2021, 18:47:

Bishi wrote on Jun 27, 2021, 18:26:
Fucking snoresland of a game, awful AI, half-decent gunplay, with built in cheats, but was just a yawn-fest after a few hours. No character depth and a bland world it was like the worst parts of Deus Ex and GTA duct taped together.

It's actually staggering how many people disagree with you. It's almost like... opinions vary. Who'da thunk it?

I, personally, thought the storyline was excellent, full of interesting character development and actual options in how I wanted the story to play out, but then, as Bill Hicks once said, "I'm a reader."

I read books for storyline. Based on the hype train I thought I was in for a real treat, turns out what I saw in the trailers was the best of the game. If you think the game had amazing character development and actual options then erm maybe you've never read a good book in your life. This thing was as deep as a puddle in summer.

I'd rate Harry Potter above this writing and that is a low bar indeed.

Lemme guess - you rushed through just the main storyline, skipping any possible side stuff, any additional character development and didn't complete anything other than the main path? 'Cause that's what your opinion feels like. There's an actual conflict of does Johnny's personality as a construct exist as a real being or is it just a ghost in the machine that unfurls over all the stuff it feels like you just skipped. If a second person started living inside of your head, are you obligated to them in any way, or are they just a virus? If you kill that second person in your head, is it murder? And what happens when their personality starts bleeding into your own?

I'm sorry the story didn't hold your hand enough. Maybe you should stick to simpler fiction.

As for never reading a good book in my life, you're talking to a guy who's WRITTEN novels, in addition to having an entire room filled with books. I tried reading the first Harry Potter book once and found the prose style clearly targeted at children, and decided not to read further.

You're entitled to your opinion. I just think you're wrong, because it certainly feels like you just read the highlights and didn't give any time for the story to breathe. Reading a Cliff Notes version of a story isn't reading a story.

I'm sorry that you feel that this was a personal attack. I was just super disappointed with the game. I completely bought into the hype and was expecting a masterpiece. Not even slating it for performance and bugs on launch as for me at least it was decent and I don't feel that technical experience on launch should affect a game's 'rating' anyway.
I actually was on my way to 100% completion (I did every single possible side quest) and was about 80% or so through the game but I just couldn't take how mundane and shallow deep every system in the game is, especially the combat which is far too exploitable and simple even compared to the Witcher 3 combat snoozefest (and yes I thought most of the writing in that game was much better). After the first few hours of content everything just gets steamrolled and it just turns into a bad GTA game.

You're also entitled to your opinion, but are wrong to assume I didn't give it a fair chance, I was playing the game to death hoping to find something great beneath the pretty veneer and just found it incomplete and devoid of content.

Yeah, I'd say "maybe you've never read a good book in your life" was a personal attack, and if you don't think it was, maybe you should revisit how you talk to people.

Also, FWIW, nothing you've posted in any way demonstrates you did any part of the storyline. You don't speak to any of the sidepaths, or to the Johnny/V conflict and how it plays out over any of the missions, main or side. You say you did every possible sidequest, but don't have a single instance of specific writing you didn't care for? You can't speak at all to the dynamic between all the various characters?

The combat's not for everyone, but I had fun. I don't care that you didn't. Your mileage may vary when it comes to gameplay. But when you decide to personally attack someone who did like the storyline and writing, implying they don't know what good fiction is, yeah, you'd damn well better expect someone to call you on that shit.

It was buggy at launch. I have yet to see anyone deny that anywhere. The PC version was the least buggy and still could've used another 4-6 months of QA, but that's sadly a common thread in modern AAA videogame development. The fact that you were "expecting a masterpiece" is, frankly, insane. I went into it expecting to have a good time and enjoy a videogame, not read Orwell's "1984" while listening to "Let It Be" by the Beatles. You also may want to look into not believing anyone's hype on anything.

You don't have to like the game. I honestly don't care that you didn't like the game. I'm just tired of people shitting on those of us who did enjoy the game because they didn't, and generally demonstrating they didn't play the game much at all. You seem to be doing a lot of attacking and very little supporting of your argument. Also, "devoid of content" made me laugh so hard. I've put in 90+ hours to the game and still haven't done everything the game has to offer.

Bishi wrote on Jun 27, 2021, 19:14:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 27, 2021, 18:47:

Bishi wrote on Jun 27, 2021, 18:26:
Fucking snoresland of a game, awful AI, half-decent gunplay, with built in cheats, but was just a yawn-fest after a few hours. No character depth and a bland world it was like the worst parts of Deus Ex and GTA duct taped together.

It's actually staggering how many people disagree with you. It's almost like... opinions vary. Who'da thunk it?

I, personally, thought the storyline was excellent, full of interesting character development and actual options in how I wanted the story to play out, but then, as Bill Hicks once said, "I'm a reader."

I read books for storyline. Based on the hype train I thought I was in for a real treat, turns out what I saw in the trailers was the best of the game. If you think the game had amazing character development and actual options then erm maybe you've never read a good book in your life. This thing was as deep as a puddle in summer.

I'd rate Harry Potter above this writing and that is a low bar indeed.

Lemme guess - you rushed through just the main storyline, skipping any possible side stuff, any additional character development and didn't complete anything other than the main path? 'Cause that's what your opinion feels like. There's an actual conflict of does Johnny's personality as a construct exist as a real being or is it just a ghost in the machine that unfurls over all the stuff it feels like you just skipped. If a second person started living inside of your head, are you obligated to them in any way, or are they just a virus? If you kill that second person in your head, is it murder? And what happens when their personality starts bleeding into your own?

I'm sorry the story didn't hold your hand enough. Maybe you should stick to simpler fiction.

As for never reading a good book in my life, you're talking to a guy who's WRITTEN novels, in addition to having an entire room filled with books. I tried reading the first Harry Potter book once and found the prose style clearly targeted at children, and decided not to read further.

You're entitled to your opinion. I just think you're wrong, because it certainly feels like you just read the highlights and didn't give any time for the story to breathe. Reading a Cliff Notes version of a story isn't reading a story.