Trump Card - failed The Apprentice - failed The Celebrity Apprentice - failed
2020 Presidential Election - failed
Social media presence - failed
Not being called "Dump" - failed
It's EA. I could see this direct-selling-on-the-sly thing being intentional.
EA says its investigating and it needs to be very transparent as to the results of that investigation.
Again, it's EA. I'd be surprised if they're actually conducting an investigation, and even if they are I doubt they'll find any wrongdoing unless those responsible aren't giving EA the profits.
The entire part of the gaming industry that revolves around buying packs trying to get rare items only works if there is trust from the public that all of this is on the up and up. The moment that the public no longer believes in the system, it collapses.
In which case, good riddance and GTFO.
It's one thing if the pulls or gachas or whatever are 100% cash-free, available every couple hours or so, and stack with no upper limit (so if it's 1 draw per 2 hours and 12 hours pass, you have 6 draws at your disposal) or FOMO (promotional items and such go into the regular blind draw after the event ends). It's another thing if games that are free-to-play or pay-to-play have predatory lootboxes and microtransactions, which seems to be the overwhelming majority (want an aiming reticule on the screen? $5. That gun skin? $15. That character? $50. Not to mention the common "You can either struggle and grind for days and days, or pay to win." model).
And eroding trust in a major player in this industry, such as EA Sports,
(pfft) HAHAHA! People actually trust EA? Pretty sure that's what's referred to as "fools and their money".
is going to have a spillover effect to other publishers and studios.
EA has such a terrible reputation, all of its own making, that I doubt it'll have a spillover effect outside of other companies that pull similar lootbox/microtransaction crap.
I'm not saying both major parties aren't attacking 230, but as I understand it Democrats tend to think it isn't powerful enough (or at the very least, that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have allowed some crap to stay up while taking other crap down), whereas over the past four years Retrumplickins have yelled long, hard, and loud that "230 lets Big Tech engage in anti-conservative bias and censorship!" (which translates to, as you said, "[they] don't like being called out on their bullshit").
Even so, corruption and bullcrappery should be called out no matter what anyone's political leaning is.
Not sure who AC had in mind, but when I think "decades-long retaliation against people who called [him/her] by a mean name in an article decades ago" my mind goes to David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard before him.
Given the sheer number of times Trumpists (can we even call them "Republicans" anymore?) and their allies have attacked Section 230 for "anti-conservative bias" (because things like fact-checking and negative consequences for speech are for everyone else), I think it's safe to say that Tim and Janice are doing this out of malice - if they can't kill off Section 230 directly, they'll hold their state's ability to invest for ransom.
it's a bit of a risky venture for EA Sports to take, given that any NCAA Football title as of now would have to be given an "incomplete" grade. The Big 10 without Northwestern? College football without Notre Dame?
It's EA. I can absolutely see them releasing a college football game that's missing teams, pinky promising that the absent teams will be added as DLC, and then releasing Ultimate Team packs so you'll have to unlock the missing schools' teams yourself (but the chances of getting any individual player from said teams is 0.001%).
And what if more schools start getting pressure from their students and athletes and start to go down the same path?
Last I checked, Techdirt is decidedly unbiased when it comes to calling out crap and corruption, no matter who's doing it.
Saying that the site would completely flip its mindset if Biden does the same things Trump has done (or worse stuff) just because it's not Trump doing it suggests to me that you support political corruption so long as "Da Left" isn't the ones doing it.
I began writing that comment when there weren't any on the page, but by the time I tapped Submit there were a bunch of (far better) responses and I realized my suggestion was kinda dumb in comparison.
And yet Nightdive was also told by all three entities, independently mind you, that they might own some rights and would go find out if Nightdive tried to rerelease the game to see if they could sue over it.
In that case, Nightdive should try to rerelease the game. If any of the companies try to sue, Nightdive can show the receipts in court to indicate that they (Nightdive) tried for years to work out who had the rights but the suing company/ies were unwilling to check if they had any rights to No One Lives Forever unless Nightdive tried to rerelease it, and even then only to see if they had standing to sue, therefore rereleasing the game was the only way to get the suing company/ies off their asses and actually sort out this issue like Nightdive had wanted to do in the first place.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Family's Bizarrely Stupid Defamation Lawsuit Goes Off The Rails
Re:
I've got 99 problems but a Biss ain't one.
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
A book written by the editor-in-chief of Breitbart, a well-known source of lies and Republican propaganda (but I repeat myself). Hard pass.
On the post: Map Of The Internet Exposes The Lie That 'Big Tech' Controls The Internet
"ICANN SEA" and "IP STRAIT" made me smile.
Yes, I'm an adult.
On the post: Trump Bans Himself From His Own Blog; Upset That Everyone Mocked Its Terrible Traffic
Re: Re:
There's more:
Trump Card - failed
The Apprentice - failed
The Celebrity Apprentice - failed
2020 Presidential Election - failed
Social media presence - failed
Not being called "Dump" - failed
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Argument not over views favorable to GOOGLE, Facebook, T
I mean, you're not wrong - look at how long Republicans were championing for zero regulation for Big Telecom prior to Net Neutrality being repealed.
...Oh wait, you weren't referring to that, were you?
Because the basic ability to be able to punish those who take a crap on your floor is evil.
Go back to QAnon land or whatever other internet sewer you crawled out from.
On the post: The Pillow Dude's 'Free Speech' Social Media Website Will Moderate 'Swear Words' Because Of Course It Will
Mike Lindell is an f-wording c-word.
On the post: Accusations Of EA Employee Side-Selling 'FIFA' Rare In-Game Items Is A Problem If True
It's EA. I could see this direct-selling-on-the-sly thing being intentional.
Again, it's EA. I'd be surprised if they're actually conducting an investigation, and even if they are I doubt they'll find any wrongdoing unless those responsible aren't giving EA the profits.
In which case, good riddance and GTFO.
It's one thing if the pulls or gachas or whatever are 100% cash-free, available every couple hours or so, and stack with no upper limit (so if it's 1 draw per 2 hours and 12 hours pass, you have 6 draws at your disposal) or FOMO (promotional items and such go into the regular blind draw after the event ends). It's another thing if games that are free-to-play or pay-to-play have predatory lootboxes and microtransactions, which seems to be the overwhelming majority (want an aiming reticule on the screen? $5. That gun skin? $15. That character? $50. Not to mention the common "You can either struggle and grind for days and days, or pay to win." model).
(pfft) HAHAHA! People actually trust EA? Pretty sure that's what's referred to as "fools and their money".
EA has such a terrible reputation, all of its own making, that I doubt it'll have a spillover effect outside of other companies that pull similar lootbox/microtransaction crap.
On the post: Tennessee Lawmakers' Latest Attack On Section 230 Would Basically Ban All Government Investment
Re: Re:
I'm not saying both major parties aren't attacking 230, but as I understand it Democrats tend to think it isn't powerful enough (or at the very least, that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have allowed some crap to stay up while taking other crap down), whereas over the past four years Retrumplickins have yelled long, hard, and loud that "230 lets Big Tech engage in anti-conservative bias and censorship!" (which translates to, as you said, "[they] don't like being called out on their bullshit").
Even so, corruption and bullcrappery should be called out no matter what anyone's political leaning is.
On the post: Records Show President Trump Loved Going After Whistleblowers Even More Than Obama Did
Re: Re: Re:
Not sure who AC had in mind, but when I think "decades-long retaliation against people who called [him/her] by a mean name in an article decades ago" my mind goes to David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard before him.
On the post: Tennessee Lawmakers' Latest Attack On Section 230 Would Basically Ban All Government Investment
Given the sheer number of times Trumpists (can we even call them "Republicans" anymore?) and their allies have attacked Section 230 for "anti-conservative bias" (because things like fact-checking and negative consequences for speech are for everyone else), I think it's safe to say that Tim and Janice are doing this out of malice - if they can't kill off Section 230 directly, they'll hold their state's ability to invest for ransom.
On the post: EA College Sports Is Back, But Some Schools Are Opting Out Until Name, Image, Likeness Rules Are Created To Compensate Athletes
It's EA. I can absolutely see them releasing a college football game that's missing teams, pinky promising that the absent teams will be added as DLC, and then releasing Ultimate Team packs so you'll have to unlock the missing schools' teams yourself (but the chances of getting any individual player from said teams is 0.001%).
Less work for EA, then!
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
Dude, either stop putting words in peoples' mouths and make a valid point of your own, or GTFO.
Did...did you just invoke the "Leave Britney Alone" meme?
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
Re: Easy Difference
Source? (And no, your asshole doesn't count.)
On the post: BMG, Aggressive Champion Of Copyright Enforcement, Accused Of Copyright Infringement By Jehovah's Witnesses
Accuracy is important...
On the post: Google Threatens To Pull Out Of Australia Entirely; Australians Demand That It Both Stay And Pay News Orgs For Giving Them Traffic
Re: "Imagine Google pulling out of Texas."
The only reason it's purple is because Cruz is wringing its neck.
On the post: Mitch McConnell Using Section 230 Repeal As A Poison Pill To Avoid $2k Stimulus Checks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked, Techdirt is decidedly unbiased when it comes to calling out crap and corruption, no matter who's doing it.
Saying that the site would completely flip its mindset if Biden does the same things Trump has done (or worse stuff) just because it's not Trump doing it suggests to me that you support political corruption so long as "Da Left" isn't the ones doing it.
On the post: Dutch Prosecutors Say One Man Got Into Trump's Twitter Account With 'MAGA2020!' Password
Twitter saying there's no evidence may suggest this guy's lying and made up what he presented to Dutch authorities.
I'd say it's more likely that they have - many times - but Trump either doesn't listen or doesn't care.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
Re: Re: The solution is simple...
I began writing that comment when there weren't any on the page, but by the time I tapped Submit there were a bunch of (far better) responses and I realized my suggestion was kinda dumb in comparison.
If I could delete it, I would.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
The solution is simple...
In that case, Nightdive should try to rerelease the game. If any of the companies try to sue, Nightdive can show the receipts in court to indicate that they (Nightdive) tried for years to work out who had the rights but the suing company/ies were unwilling to check if they had any rights to No One Lives Forever unless Nightdive tried to rerelease it, and even then only to see if they had standing to sue, therefore rereleasing the game was the only way to get the suing company/ies off their asses and actually sort out this issue like Nightdive had wanted to do in the first place.
On the post: China's Hong Kong Protester-Targeting 'See Something, Say Something' Hotline Is A Big Success
Re: 7 years?
Seconded.
Either the writer messed up the math, or he knows something we don't.
Next >>