Quinn wrote on Jul 27, 2022, 17:02:

ForgedReality wrote on Jul 27, 2022, 14:31:

Thunderwalker wrote on Jul 27, 2022, 12:44:
Without the bro culture, it’s just another shooter with vehicles.

Sad is the day that GTA goes woke.

F

*massive eye roll*

You conservatives are so pathetic. "Woke" used to mean intelligent and aware of what's going on.

And shoving it in everyone's faces.

☝️You forgot that last part, which is the crux of it.

There really aren't that many people -- relatively speaking -- in our society that are against what woke stands for. It's the shoving down our throat part -- the preaching; lecture almost -- that some people can't stand. Myself included.

I love how "standing up for yourselves so you don't get trampled on" becomes "shoving down our throat" from a pair of eyes too blind to see past their own nose. The preaching is to point out how ingrained racism, sexism and homophobia are to people who claim "it's not a big deal." If you're bothered by that, maybe it's not the "preaching" that you're bothered by.

You need to move the Hearthstone Patch notes to the April Fool's section, Blue.

Ah, Blizzard. Where nobody innovates, and all anyone does is renovate...

Laughing Man wrote on Jan 25, 2022, 16:18:

Bodolza wrote on Jan 25, 2022, 15:30:

RaZ0r! wrote on Jan 25, 2022, 12:41:
I'm not a Disney/Star Wars guy so I know I won't be purchasing these three games for sure

So you'll intentionally avoid good games because you're not a fan of the IP? That's a strange hill to die on.

What's strange is telling someone else they should be playing games from IP's they don't enjoy because you think they're good games.

What's strange is telling everyone you won't buy a game to deliberately pick a fight and then acting strange when the fight kicks off, instead of just... not buying the game, and letting those excited about the game be excited for themselves.

I still wish they'd gone ahead and made the Agent game they announced a billion years ago...

This is a royal flush of bad game design ideas, bad game mechanic ideas, bad game expectations, bad game implementation and bad gameplay core loops.

This might, in fact, be Peak Stupid Internet.

"Please stop talking about us shredding evidence in the state of California's lawsuit against us. Kthxbye"

audun wrote on Oct 3, 2021, 16:44:
The vaccination rate in Romania is around 28%. Bucharest now has a curfew at night, masks required, proof of vaccination or negative test required to visit a restaurant. I wonder what Valve thought the situation would be like. I think they announced it in July this year?

So if you look at the rate of cases in Romania in July, you can understand Valve's thinking - it was down to as little as 10-20 cases a day for the whole country. The problem being that in the back half of September, they had a MASSIVE spike, bringing them up to 10k cases a day. Basically, Romania couldn't keep their shit together long enough for all of this to happen.

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.