To the best of my knowledge no one is trying to restrict the right to bare arms. In fact IIRC the law in New York (?) is being adjusted so that women can even bare torsos (including nipples!). I haven't heard any talk about requires people to wear sleeves.
I don't think the benefit will be as significant as you do. I'm only likely to sell off the crappy games that I can't see myself playing again, most of which will probably go for pennies. I expect that I represent a much larger but much less vocal segment than the people who buy games and then flip them a week later. Meanwhile if the sales are curtailed then my spending will drop significantly. I see that potential end as a significant net negative. My hope is that it works out in a way that doesn't curtail the sales, my expectation is that I will be disappointed.
F2P comes with it's own issues and ugliness. I can't think of a game I've seen yet where the F2P model was pleasing for me. YMMV of course.
The problem I see is this, I recently purchased XCOM at 66% off, if I immediately installed it, played 5 minutes and decided it wasn't for me then turned around and sold it at the same price as soon as the sale ended then that's hurting the developer. If that becomes a thing I can see Steam being restricted from deep discounts on games that aren't really old. I don't think it's necessarily a guarantee, but I can see a significant risk there.
I hope my concern is unfounded, but I expect it isn't.
The tests I've seen showed that for computers differences in RAM speed made a minimal difference. I doubt that the difference will be that significant in the consoles.
I wonder if the EU decision will screw Steam over. The abundance of discounts they offer are likely predicated on the idea that you can't turn around and resell the games for cheap immediately, if that becomes an option I can totally see the sales becoming far weaker.
I'll bet they made more money releasing at the $60 price point than they would have releasing at $30. There's enough people willing to pay full price that it more than makes up the difference for those of us who are willing to wait. Not to mention that if you want to play MP games (which I don't and I assume you don't) you have a window of a couple months before the next game comes out that steals the playerbase.
Another thing to keep in mind is inflation. That $60 that you're paying now is worth less than the $50 everyone was paying back in the late 90's, and worth FAR less than the $50 a game might have cost in the late 80's. Games ARE cheaper today, it's just that the number on the price tag has stayed the same.
True enough. To be fair we ARE seeing some disturbing trends like the growth of DLC that's content deliberately cut out of the finished game specifically to be sold at a higher price, but it's definitely true that the industry isn't as bad overall as some people (including myself at times) like to say.
I'm pretty sure that generation was the Wii/PS3/XBox 360 generation.
I don't think the Wi belongs on that list there, but other than that I agree. I think that from here on we're looking at diminishing returns on graphics quality. That being said I look forward to have things like larger maps. better physics and things like that which will be allowed by better hardware, but even that probably only has another generation before it peaks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the PS4/Xbox One generation lasts 10+ years.
That last part isn't true. I bought my most recent rifle off a friend in a different state and we did the transfer in his state. The FFL had to take a few more steps and commented that he hadn't done that for a while, but there was no issues.
My hope for Sandy Hook was that Obama would do the smart thing and use gun control to whip the Right into a frenzy, then offer poverty relief and mental health as an alternative when the frenzy was peaking. Of course he disappointed me (again) and stayed the course, while I'm glad that the shit-tier gun control laws failed I'm annoyed that no one seems to have thought to use it as leverage.
Unfortunately as a gun enthusiast who would very much like to see stricter laws enacted I face a situation where I can't support any proposed laws because the end goal of the people pushing the laws is unacceptable. I would love to see licensing (on a shall issue basis of course) and registration, but if those laws are passed they will NOT be the end, so I can't support them. The problem we have today is propaganda and intellectual laziness driving people to extreme positions that lack any semblance of reason.
It's not just California, the GAO found nothing, the Congressional Research Service found nothing, the New York AG found nothing..
Either they are all lying and ACORN was engaged in blatant, STUPID violations of the law, or a pair of activists edited a story to match what they wanted it to say. One of those makes a LOT more sense than the other.
From The Wiki:
"The California Attorney General granted immunity to O'Keefe and Giles in exchange for their raw videos shot at three California ACORN offices. Its comparison of the raw videos with the released versions found that the published videos had been heavily edited to misrepresent the workers and the situations so as to suggest criminal intent and activity"
Slashdot Mirror
No.
To the best of my knowledge no one is trying to restrict the right to bare arms. In fact IIRC the law in New York (?) is being adjusted so that women can even bare torsos (including nipples!). I haven't heard any talk about requires people to wear sleeves.
On an objective scale yes. But most of us here in America think that America's scale is complete, instead of starting in the middle and going right.
I don't think the benefit will be as significant as you do. I'm only likely to sell off the crappy games that I can't see myself playing again, most of which will probably go for pennies. I expect that I represent a much larger but much less vocal segment than the people who buy games and then flip them a week later. Meanwhile if the sales are curtailed then my spending will drop significantly. I see that potential end as a significant net negative. My hope is that it works out in a way that doesn't curtail the sales, my expectation is that I will be disappointed.
Not really, the Brits may buy some stuff from us but their tanks, airplanes, ships and guns are all/mostly their own.
F2P comes with it's own issues and ugliness. I can't think of a game I've seen yet where the F2P model was pleasing for me. YMMV of course.
The problem I see is this, I recently purchased XCOM at 66% off, if I immediately installed it, played 5 minutes and decided it wasn't for me then turned around and sold it at the same price as soon as the sale ended then that's hurting the developer. If that becomes a thing I can see Steam being restricted from deep discounts on games that aren't really old. I don't think it's necessarily a guarantee, but I can see a significant risk there.
I hope my concern is unfounded, but I expect it isn't.
The tests I've seen showed that for computers differences in RAM speed made a minimal difference. I doubt that the difference will be that significant in the consoles.
The release of the Xbox One seemed to be conspicous in how little attention was given to it as a gaming platform.
Because E3 is in less than 3 weeks.
I wonder if the EU decision will screw Steam over. The abundance of discounts they offer are likely predicated on the idea that you can't turn around and resell the games for cheap immediately, if that becomes an option I can totally see the sales becoming far weaker.
I'll bet they made more money releasing at the $60 price point than they would have releasing at $30. There's enough people willing to pay full price that it more than makes up the difference for those of us who are willing to wait. Not to mention that if you want to play MP games (which I don't and I assume you don't) you have a window of a couple months before the next game comes out that steals the playerbase.
Another thing to keep in mind is inflation. That $60 that you're paying now is worth less than the $50 everyone was paying back in the late 90's, and worth FAR less than the $50 a game might have cost in the late 80's. Games ARE cheaper today, it's just that the number on the price tag has stayed the same.
True enough. To be fair we ARE seeing some disturbing trends like the growth of DLC that's content deliberately cut out of the finished game specifically to be sold at a higher price, but it's definitely true that the industry isn't as bad overall as some people (including myself at times) like to say.
I'm pretty sure that generation was the Wii/PS3/XBox 360 generation .
I don't think the Wi belongs on that list there, but other than that I agree. I think that from here on we're looking at diminishing returns on graphics quality. That being said I look forward to have things like larger maps. better physics and things like that which will be allowed by better hardware, but even that probably only has another generation before it peaks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the PS4/Xbox One generation lasts 10+ years.
They are squishier though.
That last part isn't true. I bought my most recent rifle off a friend in a different state and we did the transfer in his state. The FFL had to take a few more steps and commented that he hadn't done that for a while, but there was no issues.
My hope for Sandy Hook was that Obama would do the smart thing and use gun control to whip the Right into a frenzy, then offer poverty relief and mental health as an alternative when the frenzy was peaking. Of course he disappointed me (again) and stayed the course, while I'm glad that the shit-tier gun control laws failed I'm annoyed that no one seems to have thought to use it as leverage.
It's only a fallacy when there isn't a large groups who's STATED GOAL is what you're talking about.
Unfortunately as a gun enthusiast who would very much like to see stricter laws enacted I face a situation where I can't support any proposed laws because the end goal of the people pushing the laws is unacceptable. I would love to see licensing (on a shall issue basis of course) and registration, but if those laws are passed they will NOT be the end, so I can't support them. The problem we have today is propaganda and intellectual laziness driving people to extreme positions that lack any semblance of reason.
"mostly I think that people are just too stupid and lazy to spend 30 seconds to think about any of those points to realize how absurd they are."
This for the most part. People are intellectually lazy and largely uninformed about how the world works.
It's not quite that easy, but we are working on plastic cartridges now, look up the LSAT program.
All you'd have to do is make sure the chamber is strong enough, maybe use a slightly lower power cartridge. It's not that hard.
I'll take a drumstick please.
And here is me, with no mod points for the day.
It's not just California, the GAO found nothing, the Congressional Research Service found nothing, the New York AG found nothing..
Either they are all lying and ACORN was engaged in blatant, STUPID violations of the law, or a pair of activists edited a story to match what they wanted it to say. One of those makes a LOT more sense than the other.
From The Wiki: "The California Attorney General granted immunity to O'Keefe and Giles in exchange for their raw videos shot at three California ACORN offices. Its comparison of the raw videos with the released versions found that the published videos had been heavily edited to misrepresent the workers and the situations so as to suggest criminal intent and activity"
The fake video created to discredit and destroy ACORN?