Now regulating that becomes extremely hard if not impossible.
Well, just as with fixed odds betting machines and modern electronic slot machines, the underlying code is far from random(). It's very explicitly designed to draw in a player, keep them playing and encourage further expenditure.
Since those are very evidently very easily regulated, there's no reason that the gambling elements of other computer games can't be too.
The more interesting question is whether existing regulation could be positioned as relevant to the EA products in some jurisdictions.
Ever seen a Michael Bay movie? A script that can be summed up on a napkin, including dialogues and more explosions per minute than downtown Kabul. That's basically a Bay movie. Any of them.
Hmm, no. Bad Boys was entertaining, The Rock was a bit 'by the numbers' but professionally done and certainly not a bad film, and Armageddon had some nice touches and relatively few explosions.
Bollocks. Five million sales at $60 each, allow only 40% reaching the development studio, you're looking at $120m.
If you can't develop a game at a profit for $120m - even with pretty graphics, sound and voiceovers - then you're probably Chris Roberts.
Then take into account that Battlefield 1, a less lucrative franchise, had sales of well over 10 million.. I'm thinking there's a profit to be made here with no microtransactions or paid unlocks required.
People play games for fun and entertainment. Not as a substitute for work, where they have to put unfun effort into accessing the content for which they've paid.
Microtransactions for cosmetics I generally ignore. Rocket League must make millions for its dev team based on the cosmetics - but it also pays for the continued game development and server support.
they don't affect gameplay much
Too much, then. In a single player game there's no call at all for gameplay changing microtransactions and in a multi-player one they immediate break game balance (and often damage its entertainment value - the devs invariably punish their non-microtransaction-buying customers to incentivise further purchases).
American Truck Simulator, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Dishonored, The Witcher 3, Rocket League, Divinity: Original Sin (and D:OS 2), Starpoint Gemini (2 and/or Warlords) are all 'buy once, play for ages'. Some of them have additional content you can purchase but it's definitely just extending the game rather than necessary to complete/enjoy it.
For online play things like GW2 (which you mentioned), Secret Worlds Legends, World of Tanks, War Thunder, Overwatch all offer interactive gameplay of various forms and I've bought no DLC for any of them.
Still some choices out there, but it's harder to find good games.
Nah, there are some stunning games out there. Hell, millions are playing PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, GTA V still has massive sales, the Total War franchise remains popular (and keeps changing its offering) and the Indie market continues to deliver excellence - if you can find it.
Must admit though, I am still quivering in anticipation of Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlords. Give!!
Whatever makes you think they're forced? Shit, I'd happily have been a cam-boy at university if there had been a market for it. Lets face it, I was going to masturbate anyway, may as well make money from it.
Well, yes, effectively they are import tariffs. However what I refer to is what WindBourne described as technically VAT with tax breaks for things made in Mexico.
If only there were numerous critiques of the paper
Salon article : no evidence of misogyny, instead quoting lots of people virtue signalling.
Guardian article : first fucking sentence states "biological inferiority" of women, something Damore didn't fucking do. Again, no evidence of misogyny.
Wikipedia : Read the 'cultural impact' section of the article you linked. It aligns closely to my view which is that people went "Oh no! Misogyny!!" and didn't fucking read the memo, didn't try and understand it, didn't try and engage with its arguments and certainly didn't treat it as an honest attempt to help improve a company.
Why hasn't the person that leaked it been disciplined? They're the person that damaged Google's reputation. Damore merely wrote a document for internal use.
I've never written "These views are mine and mine alone" on a document created for internal use. I've never written it on one written for external use either, as those do represent my employer.
For all I know the document may have some valid points buried in the misogynist bullshit
You appear to have redefined the term 'misogynist'. Could you perhaps highlight the "misogynist bullshit" in Damore's document because I didn't spot it.
Whether he had valid points or not, the way people have demonised his writing means he was indeed clearly working within a hostile workplace culture. It's just that it was clearly hostile to men, not to women.
Seems to me that Damore was trying to create a more welcoming environment to women. The people making it hostile are the fuckwits that misinterpreted it.
Right now Google is clearly a hostile environment to anybody that recognises the differences between men and women. I suspect it's hostile to most men too, and good fucking luck trying to implement or enact equality policies there.
That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.
It's useless cunts like you declaiming shit like this as 'hate speech' that led to Trump getting fucking elected in the first place. People can see that it's not hate speech, so they immediately distrust anybody claiming it is.
Incidentally even under your pathetic fucking definition that tweet doesn't count. It doesn't attack anybody.
If you disagree with the policy then put some fucking arguments together and state sensible objections to it. Don't just fucking squeal, "HATE SPEECH!!!" and pretend you've won the debate. You've merely killed your own credibility.
Google can provide CRUD capabilities without ever knowing the content of the data.
It's the same way that a DBA can administer a database without ever looking at its data. In theory that's not possible but in practice it's very easy. Just the same for Google and docs.
Fines can be up to 4% of annual turnover, but if your turnover is less than 800m then your fine can be up to 20m anyway. Yes, it's possible to receive a fine that's four times your annual turnover if you're a small business.
Those are explicitly stated though as the maximum fines. The legislation does allow for lower fines and in the UK the ICO has indicated that they'd prefer to avoid fines where possible and impose substantially smaller fines where needed.
Slashdot Mirror
the underline code is just the function random().
Now regulating that becomes extremely hard if not impossible.
Well, just as with fixed odds betting machines and modern electronic slot machines, the underlying code is far from random(). It's very explicitly designed to draw in a player, keep them playing and encourage further expenditure.
Since those are very evidently very easily regulated, there's no reason that the gambling elements of other computer games can't be too.
The more interesting question is whether existing regulation could be positioned as relevant to the EA products in some jurisdictions.
Ever seen a Michael Bay movie? A script that can be summed up on a napkin, including dialogues and more explosions per minute than downtown Kabul. That's basically a Bay movie. Any of them.
Hmm, no. Bad Boys was entertaining, The Rock was a bit 'by the numbers' but professionally done and certainly not a bad film, and Armageddon had some nice touches and relatively few explosions.
It's since then he's gone horribly wrong.
Bollocks. Five million sales at $60 each, allow only 40% reaching the development studio, you're looking at $120m.
If you can't develop a game at a profit for $120m - even with pretty graphics, sound and voiceovers - then you're probably Chris Roberts.
Then take into account that Battlefield 1, a less lucrative franchise, had sales of well over 10 million.. I'm thinking there's a profit to be made here with no microtransactions or paid unlocks required.
Yummy, I love faggots.
http://groceries.iceland.co.uk...
People play games for fun and entertainment. Not as a substitute for work, where they have to put unfun effort into accessing the content for which they've paid.
just because you unlocked Princess Leia
From one perspective she was rather more fun to play with locked up...
Microtransactions for cosmetics I generally ignore. Rocket League must make millions for its dev team based on the cosmetics - but it also pays for the continued game development and server support.
they don't affect gameplay much
Too much, then. In a single player game there's no call at all for gameplay changing microtransactions and in a multi-player one they immediate break game balance (and often damage its entertainment value - the devs invariably punish their non-microtransaction-buying customers to incentivise further purchases).
Keep microtransactions out of gaming ffs.
Rather than Witcher 4 they're more likely to switch main character and give us a Ceri based adventure.
However, first they're doing something that absolutely isn't a rehashed sequel: Cyberpunk 2077.
The care and writing that went into Witcher 3, in a cyberpunk setting? Oh yes!
American Truck Simulator, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Dishonored, The Witcher 3, Rocket League, Divinity: Original Sin (and D:OS 2), Starpoint Gemini (2 and/or Warlords) are all 'buy once, play for ages'. Some of them have additional content you can purchase but it's definitely just extending the game rather than necessary to complete/enjoy it.
For online play things like GW2 (which you mentioned), Secret Worlds Legends, World of Tanks, War Thunder, Overwatch all offer interactive gameplay of various forms and I've bought no DLC for any of them.
Still some choices out there, but it's harder to find good games.
Nah, there are some stunning games out there. Hell, millions are playing PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, GTA V still has massive sales, the Total War franchise remains popular (and keeps changing its offering) and the Indie market continues to deliver excellence - if you can find it.
Must admit though, I am still quivering in anticipation of Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlords. Give!!
I find computer games have the best release notes:
https://twitter.com/TheStrange...
Women forced
Whatever makes you think they're forced? Shit, I'd happily have been a cam-boy at university if there had been a market for it. Lets face it, I was going to masturbate anyway, may as well make money from it.
What you describe are import tarifs
Well, yes, effectively they are import tariffs. However what I refer to is what WindBourne described as technically VAT with tax breaks for things made in Mexico.
Blame him, not me.
have their money in several different tax heavens and jurisdictions so that no amount of sanctions or other problems can shut them down
To be fair, that's just common sense. Diversify to avoid undue risk in any specific market or locale.
VATs are not tariffs.
Unless, as quoted, you give local companies a 100% tax break.
By your alleged definition, any critique of a population group, religion or nationality is hate speech.
Fuck that and fuck you. Sign me up for the hate speech bus because if telling cunts like you that you're cunts is hate speech then I'm right on board.
If only there were numerous critiques of the paper
Salon article : no evidence of misogyny, instead quoting lots of people virtue signalling.
Guardian article : first fucking sentence states "biological inferiority" of women, something Damore didn't fucking do. Again, no evidence of misogyny.
Wikipedia : Read the 'cultural impact' section of the article you linked. It aligns closely to my view which is that people went "Oh no! Misogyny!!" and didn't fucking read the memo, didn't try and understand it, didn't try and engage with its arguments and certainly didn't treat it as an honest attempt to help improve a company.
Oh wait, there are
Then why didn't you link any?
Men NEVER face a similar problem, so their stress level is invariably MUCH LESS from the job.
Check suicide rates by gender, then fuck off with your pop psychology bullshit.
Why hasn't the person that leaked it been disciplined? They're the person that damaged Google's reputation. Damore merely wrote a document for internal use.
I've never written "These views are mine and mine alone" on a document created for internal use. I've never written it on one written for external use either, as those do represent my employer.
For all I know the document may have some valid points buried in the misogynist bullshit
You appear to have redefined the term 'misogynist'. Could you perhaps highlight the "misogynist bullshit" in Damore's document because I didn't spot it.
Whether he had valid points or not, the way people have demonised his writing means he was indeed clearly working within a hostile workplace culture. It's just that it was clearly hostile to men, not to women.
Seems to me that Damore was trying to create a more welcoming environment to women. The people making it hostile are the fuckwits that misinterpreted it.
Right now Google is clearly a hostile environment to anybody that recognises the differences between men and women. I suspect it's hostile to most men too, and good fucking luck trying to implement or enact equality policies there.
Actual equality policies.
That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.
It's useless cunts like you declaiming shit like this as 'hate speech' that led to Trump getting fucking elected in the first place. People can see that it's not hate speech, so they immediately distrust anybody claiming it is.
Incidentally even under your pathetic fucking definition that tweet doesn't count. It doesn't attack anybody.
If you disagree with the policy then put some fucking arguments together and state sensible objections to it. Don't just fucking squeal, "HATE SPEECH!!!" and pretend you've won the debate. You've merely killed your own credibility.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
Google can provide CRUD capabilities without ever knowing the content of the data.
It's the same way that a DBA can administer a database without ever looking at its data. In theory that's not possible but in practice it's very easy. Just the same for Google and docs.
Ok, that's tricky to source. Best I can find with a quick hunt is this:
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/sp...
It's light on the measures available, but clearly demonstrates the FCA's expectations around individual accountability and their ability to intervene.
Thank you both - informed and interesting contribution, and helped me understand it all a little better too.
Complex nasty legislation. Going to be fun in May :)
Fines can be up to 4% of annual turnover, but if your turnover is less than 800m then your fine can be up to 20m anyway. Yes, it's possible to receive a fine that's four times your annual turnover if you're a small business.
Those are explicitly stated though as the maximum fines. The legislation does allow for lower fines and in the UK the ICO has indicated that they'd prefer to avoid fines where possible and impose substantially smaller fines where needed.
Shrug. So Hilton shut down and we all use one of the other 99.97% of hotels available.
No loss.