Scott Betts wrote:
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?
Follow up question: which do you think eats into their profits more, the used game market or the 400% increase in development costs every 5 years?
I would like to point out, that her shouting and being aggressive would not fit the definition of being empathetic. So, I would say that before you even responded, I had already expressed a sentiment that I don't agree with that kind of behavior.
I fail to see how your example has anything to do with what I'm saying, because it isn't an example of what I'm promoting. In fact, your example is antithetical to the concept I'm promoting, so you aren't really disagreeing with me, but rather just venting about your experiences with an a~*@$~+.
I think fewer people should be a##!#!@s.
Scott Betts wrote:
I like how you still told me I'm wrong, and then cite the exact same problem.
The man hours for video games is going up, nearly exponentially. The cost of video game development has also risen exponentially. It's nearly quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and again from 2006 to 2010.
People make bad choices all the time. They even do it when they're really smart, and when there's a lot of people looking at the same thing.
Trying to control the second hand market is not the answer. It's a short term fix for a long term problem, and it is clearly not in the consumer's interest. There is zero benefit to me, either as a buyer or seller, that they want a cut of second hand sales. Supply and demand tells us they're going to lower demand, because the price goes up. Since you can't recoup money from your purchases by selling them, that means less money to buy new games.
Meanwhile, in 5 years, the development cost of a game will probably exceed $100 million.
Killing the used market is not going to increase sales by 500% over the next 5 years.
Thanks for agreeing with me. I think the "don't be offended" is equally stupid.
They're inane, useless statements that don't actually achieve anything.
Scott Betts wrote:
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
Yes, I had the precise technical aspect wrong, but you had to go about correcting me in a dickish manner.
Is that the gist of your reply?
I guess I dont understand why ppl are so easily offended. And I certainly dont understand the need to censor or restrict what people say. If you dont like something someone said, walk away, change the channel, turn the radio off! Why is that so difficult?
Couldn't I just as easily say "why don't people just stop saying offensive things? If you aren't TRYING to offend, thank the listener for the clarification and move on."
I think the world would be a better place if we encouraged and practiced empathy.
Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
2000+ years ago, when books were really hard to find, people memorized very long poems. It took 24 hours to recite the Iliad, and that probably wouldn't be the only story the reciter knew, either.
People can't/don't do that any more (with a few exceptionally rare exceptions), except for in cultures that don't have very good access to books. We've lost the skills necessary to memorize such long strings of words, because we can write them down in books now.
That process is repeating itself again and again. As technology improves the necessity for certain skills goes away. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but it's always been and always will be.
I do think certain technologies and habits concerning them are detrimental. For example the multi-tasking trend is bad IMO, but it's not going to make us dumber. Multi-tasking isn't going to halt advancement, instead it will lower the rate of it slightly as a generation of scientists and engineers go into the work place with bad habits. But it's a scientific fact, trying to multi-task reduces your brains efficiency by 15-20%, regardless of how good you think you are at it.
It's pretty common they don't make much on tickets, especially opening weekend tickets. At best, theaters keep 25% of the tickets on opening day, though that is happening less and less. Usually a month into a movie's run, the theater is getting 50-80% of the ticket.
Don't remember the guy's name, but someone who owned a lot of theaters and was fairly successful for a long time had a saying:
"Find a good place to open a popcorn stand and build a movie theater around it."
The argument of time spent with them would hold water, but only if you were talking about banning all death scenes ever in movies, because we only spend 90-120 minutes with them.
I stand by my assessment, all the bickering and fighting between them gets left behind in that scene. We were already shown what Kirk was willing to do to save Spock (opening scene), now we see how Spock feels when he is unable to save Kirk.
I'm not arguing it's great, or classic, but it's fine. The scene and relationship have their flaws, but they aren't BAD. Compared to a lot of movies, I'd even rate it as good overall as far as a buddy/partner relationship goes.
Those excuses for the torpedo are still flimsy.
Oh, also I was a little miffed at how fast the Earth affected the ship via gravity, when the ship was clearly right next to the moon. It would have taken days, even weeks, for the ship to even be drawn into low Earth orbit.
The death scene served to help cement Kirk and Spock's friendship for the viewer. We've been shown tumultuous elements of their relationship, but this helps seal it in our minds that they care for one another.
The magic blood was lame. But, so was the torpedo tube being fired from space, but somehow surviving entry into a planet's atmosphere and what was probably at least a 200 mph crash into the planet without a scratch.
The show has definitely had it's CW moments during the season, but what really struck me was how tightly crafted the finale felt. All the events and dialogue served a purpose, to further the story.
Also, I think the flashbacks were probably the best overall, in how they fit in with the present day timeline. It wasn't it's own story, it was there to highlight and illuminate what was going on.
Spoilered, just in case:
The first time that Cumberbatch is referred to as Khan is the first time the name Khan is even mentioned. The ONLY possible way that this is a spoiler is if you have watched the Wrath of Khan. If you've only seen the Abrams series, it isn't even a reveal, because you have no idea who the f~$! they're talking about. It isn't a reveal, it's exposition. Therefore, not actually a spoiler.
If you did watch the original movies, it's slightly a spoiler, but it is also completely expected. I didn't know Cumberbatch was playing Khan (I hadn't looked at this thread), but I knew that the plot was a revision of the original Wrath of Khan, so I was super unsurprised when it was actually Khan.
Edit: Also, it's spelled Khan, not Kahn.
Bill Kirsch wrote:
I'll echo some of what Mark said.
I would recommend keeping an eye out on Kickstarter for you, but backing very, very rarely. Don't jump on the big projects that are already successful, instead use those to create wishlists for future purchases once those products actually come to market.
Instead, look for projects that you find interesting, but actually need help. Ones where they look less likely to receive funding and you feel willing to contribute to help ensure they do succeed, but more because you want them to succeed, than because you really, really want to have their product in hand.
As DQ mentioned a little further up, think of it more as 21st century patronage. Only put your money in when it's something you believe in.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
I don't throw my money at folks expecting nothing. I research the people and try to at least have some guesses on the how the industry process should work. I've had excellent results with my kickstarters.
For example, WotC's miniatures line, which is fairly similar to the Bones project, probably had a turnaround time of a minimum 4 months, but possibly as long as 6 months. But that is an established product line, with a system already in place. It's really not that surprising that a much smaller company trying to start their own similar line would take 12 months to get their product to market the first run, especially a run with this many variables.
I'm sorry other people bought into the pie-in-the-sky goal of delivery within 6 months. It was unrealistic of Reaper to make that promise, but it was also unrealistic to believe it IMO.
I agree that Reaper could have communicated more. I've never disagreed with that.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Here's an interesting bit for you.
I have a different viewpoint and expectations of what happens on Kickstarter, than some of the other people in this thread. This different viewpoint and expectation has left me unsurprised and not at all frustrated.
Convince me that I would be better off with a viewpoint that left me surprised and frustrated.
Compare it to dealing with Paizo. You can preorder books from Paizo. Sure, the books are each different, and sometimes different people work on them, but overall Paizo has a process. They've worked most of the kinks out of their system, they know their suppliers well, they know how long everything takes to accomplish.
But then Paizo wants to start up a car company. They don't have an established history making cars. They make have really good ideas and be good at designing cars, but they don't have relationships with their suppliers. They don't know from experience how long it can take to get certain parts or materials. They're going to have to learn how to do every aspect of that kind of business, you're going to have to wait until they do.
The majority of preordering that goes on, for the majority of products in most industries falls into the first category. Established companies promising products that they are familiar producing. Established companies don't use Kickstarter as their preorder system, because they'd have to give KS 5% off the top. Paizo would never do their established book lines through KS, because that would wreck havoc on their profit margin.
Most of what is happening on Kickstarter is the second paragraph.
Technically, it is preordering on Kickstarter, but it isn't even close to anything you'd do, either at Paizo, Gamestop, Amazon, or any other major retailer.
Most businesses have an established method/process for refunding you your money and under what conditions. None of that exists on Kickstarter. Kickstarter doesn't have anyone to help you with customer service, unlike Amazon, or even Paizo. Amazon handles KS payments, but even then it isn't necessarily smooth and can be a hassle for both sides.
Andrew R wrote:
You're failing to understand it's not a double standard. When you examine only one word and one group of people, it appears to be a double standard, except it isn't actually, because there is more than just that one word and more than just that one group of people.
The standard is that people who are familiar with each other, or belonging to the same group have more leeway when referring to the group or individuals than people outside of that group.
The standard is equal for all. When you are dealing with strangers, if you want to keep things polite you will probably have to maintain some sort of control over your mouth.
The word n@$+*% is an example of that standard, not an isolated case to be examined without acknowledging the existence of other words and other groups.
Similarly, there are a lot of women who find it offensive when strangers call them things like honey, pumpkin, sweetie, toots, etc. Because those are words carry implications with them that make the women uncomfortable. Some women don't care, but if you don't know them and what they might find offensive/uncomfortable, why use those terms for women you don't know? Save them for family/significant others.
pres man wrote:
Do your research on people and the industry.
Don't just go "ooh, shiny!"
Doing research means:
KS is not a handholding site.
You're putting your financial information into a website that has zero policy/infrastructure on returns and zero mechanisms of enforcement. The company that owns KS will do NOTHING to help you obtain your promised goods/services, or refund your money. NOTHING. It is up to you to protect yourself.
Andrew R wrote:
I'm sorry the world is tough and unfair. People have had a lot of suggestions for those who are easily offended, such as grow a thicker skin. Maybe you could check out some of that advice.
Yes, you and I didn't enslave millions of black people and deny them their human and civil rights, personally. But we live in a country where that is part of our history. Put your big boy pants on and deal with it.
Long post about gray areas
This thread is making the assumption that the people who are the target of offensive words are in the wrong. People are basically making the argument that the words are only offensive because the targets of them choose to be offended.
I'm taking those same concepts and showing how they can easily be directed at the speaker of offensive words as well. To me, they actually sound much more convincing too.
If the listener can choose how they react to an offensive word, then the speaker can choose how they react when they are told it was offensive. Instead of getting defensive about the use of the word, they can ask honest and respectful questions.
Dennis Baker wrote:
I understand why you'd think this is true. Kickstarter can feel like a normal website where you buy things from someone.
Except that isn't exactly what is going on. You can claim it is until your blue in the face, but that doesn't make your viewpoint a reality.
You are providing money for someone to start a business, or complete a project. In return, they're going to give you some stuff, once that business is up and running, or the project is completed.
KS avoids the term investor, because you don't get a fiduciary return on the money you put into the project. So they use the term backer.
There plenty of worse cracks in the system showing than this project. Here's a project that pretty much died.
The KS funds have all been spent. The project creator is now digging into his own pocket to supply refunds, but you have to contact him directly and he has to pay pal it to you. I don't know what his exact financial situation is, but if he's out of cash in his pocket, you're out of luck on your refund. You could take him to court over it I guess.
Kickstarter is not a preorder site, regardless of how much it might appear to actually be one, or how much you wish it were one.
There's a quote from Alan Bennett I think of whenever someone decries the end of civil society:
"I saw someone peeing in Jermym Street the other day. I thought, is this the end of civilization as we know it? Or is it simply someone peeing in Jermyn Street?”
Only 60 years ago, in the US, a mob could still hang a man for an unproven offense. If that man was black, and it took place in the South, the odds of the police charging anyone with a crime was extremely negligible.
And you want to describe the Jersey Shore as a decline? While I find it distasteful, I think it's actually an improvement compared to communities committing murder.
You think white people should be allowed to invoke the memory of 400 years of slavery of black people, specifically through a word that was adopted as a pejorative in an attempt to remind black people to be submissive to white people.
You think that white people shouldn't just feel free to use the word, but be angry when people disapprove of their use of the word.
A word adopted in an era when black people, who had been freed, were subjected to a host of laws that denied them their dignity and human rights.
This is your argument?
pres man wrote:
Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).
I agree with you, JJ Abrams is really good at thinking up the beginnings of stories, but has a weakness of ending them well.
Other than a giant, glaring error in physics though, the ending of Into Darkness is fine.
More generally, I found Into Darkness to be much better than the previous one. It kept a large number of nods to the original, which increased in the final act of the movie, but they didn't feel as forced as they did in the first movie.
Cumberbatch is excellent as always IMO. It felt like Pine and Quinto settled into their roles a little better with this one, particularly Quinto.
And when someone says "you just said something offensive", people get to choose how they react to that, as well.
Andrew R wrote:
The context is that both are from the US and it's taking place in the US.
Do you think a white man should ever get angry over not being allow to call black people n+!%$+s?
In early WoW there was a bug sometimes when looting. If you 'opened' the corpse and someone in the group was dead, they would not be able to receive the loot. They eventually fixed the bug.
Our guild though had such an ingrained memory, that for the next 3 years after it was fixed, we maintained the practice of getting everyone up and alive prior to opening the body. Eventually the practice started to diminish, particularly as Blizzard added tools to make loot distribution easier, but it stuck with us for a long time.
Oh, to answer an earlier thing Meatrace, getting offended is basically just being angry. It just happens that years past, the word(s) might cow an individual into submissiveness, as they reasserted the reality of their situation. Now as people are gaining some measure of empowerment, instead of being submissive, they get angry that someone is trying to make them submissive.
Imus calling them nappy-headed ho's was verbally trying to put those women "in their place", because he didn't approve of their appearance. I figure we all agree it's offensive, but as I see it, that is the "why" it's offensive. He tried to devalue them as women and as basketball players, because they didn't fit his conception of beauty, or 'polite' appearance.
Going back to that short example I made, your reply about the black guy punching out the white guy, the black guy is basically rejecting the submissive nature being assigned to him, by using violence to assert his own dominance. I personally don't agree with that method, but that has more to do with me not wanting to promote violence.
I'd say free action.
If you want it to be particularly "realistic", I would say it like this:
Drop Backpack: Requires a move action. If nothing is held in either hand, or any such items are dropped at the same time, it can be done as a free action.
Taking off modern backpacks is pretty quick too, particularly if you just drop it wherever. Some larger packs that have both a hip belt and chest strap take more than a second, but even then I wouldn't put it past a move action.
I know a little bit about the history of backpacks, things like hip belts and chest straps didn't show up until quite recently, maybe 80-90 years ago. The French fur traders for example used heavy, large packs that just had two should straps. You can see an example here. You can't see the front, but trust me (I've been using these kind of packs for nearly 30 years), there is no chest strap or hip belt on it. They are not hard to shrug off, even though there can easily be 40-80 lbs in there.
Now, that is a pack from a specific region and period, and for a specific purpose (they were also loaded into canoes for long parts of the trip), but they were still carried a long ways on foot and if the Europeans had figured out the ergonomics of backpacks, I think it's safe to assume they'd have used that technology on these packs.
If you want to be extreme, a Move Action, but I think a Free Action is also very believable and more appropriate for the game. The character also has to be able to return to that square to pick up the pack after the fight, if they're chased off, they lose everything in their pack.
I'm not offended. I'm pointing out you don't care about the context of words within a post, therefore you don't actually care what people are saying. If you don't care what I have to say, why should I care what you have to say?
My post wasn't a mile long, there was no reason to snip it apart, or exclude any of it.
And I'm not comparing what you think I'm comparing. I'm saying that the post you wrote is a vague non-answer, and it's so vague, it can equally be applied to the opposite side of the argument.
People saying offensive things can:
a) choose not to say them
Your post is the equivalent of "lets all just get along". A vague and largely useless platitude as far as solutions go.
Apply your solution to a situation for me. Lets keep it simple and not use too many factors, but we'll assume it takes place in the USA:
A white man calls a black man a n!++!$.
Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?
I posted that whole post together for a reason. When you pick one sentence in it, and remove the context of the rest of the post and then act confused about it, I get a sense you either don't actually read my posts, or you are trying to be disingenuous.
I put those sentences together in a paragraph for a reason. I then put two paragraphs together in that post, for a reason.
If you want to nitpick on one sentence or phrase, ignoring other sections of my post, which I included for a reason, why should I care what you have to say to me?
Your first paragraph is a response to what I said. The second one has nothing to do with my point. The third one was back on again.
When someone makes the claim, like kmal2t did, that offended people are CHOOSING to be offended, it's just as easy to claim that those doing the offending are either CHOOSING to offend, or CHOOSING to be defensive about their words and pick a fight to defend their right to say whatever was offensive.
So, in effect, talking about how people could just choose to not be offended is a vague non-solution, disguised to look like a solution. In essence, it's saying "if this problem didn't exist, there wouldn't be a problem."
I'm not interested in getting into the other stuff in your second paragraph. If you want to talk about it, feel free, but I'm not.
Everything you just said can apply to the a*%#~*@s saying offensive things. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's as useful as walking into Jerusalem and saying "why can't we all just get along?" It sounds like a resolution to the situation, but it's too vague to actually resolve anything.
For example, when someone says something offensive and it's pointed out, they are CHOOSING to get defensive about it, instead of just accepting that the other person was offended.
I do think overall the theme park MMO is a dead genre for the future. As mentioned above, the investment requirements for a truly WOW style game (size and scope of the game world, variety of player options, etc) is very large and is plagued by the problem of video games in general. Technological advancements have improved the potential of games, but every advancement has increased the number of man hours required to take advantage of it. I don't actually know the number, but I would guess that 200,000 man hours is not unrealistic as a minimum for a AAA game.
I do think that WoW hasn't done itself any favors by making it easier to play the game without making friends. An MMO's strength is the other players and the social experience, making that easier to avoid takes away the primary strength an MMO can have against non-MMO games. Sure, Farcry is cool, but once I've beaten it, I'm going to look for another game. If all my friends are still on WoW, I'll go back. If I have no friends on WoW and I've accomplished my primary goal, why would I go back to it?
SWTOR's primary failure was to make it a good single player experience and be largely devoid of interesting things to do with my friends. The initial game release was interesting to level, but almost nothing to do afterwards, and the best parts of leveling were done alone.
Currently I am enjoying Planetside 2, which is again, entirely about the social experience. If you play solo, the game is pretty bad IMO, you can easily end up alone facing off against 5-50 people who just destroy you. It's a team game, so you're best off finding a team you enjoy and working with them. They still need to improve the overall experience though, but they are working on it.
Oh, WoW is 8 years old. The only games that are that old that might have that many people still playing are probably from the Sims series, or other Blizzard titles.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
You're argument is now "you have to give up your pay for the greater good". How is that capitalism? That sounds like socialism.
Here's the other side of what you're saying: because workers are paid more, they can afford to buy more things, thereby helping pay the wage of other workers, who can now buy more things.
Remember my point earlier, working class people tend to put 10% of their pay (or less) into savings. While wealthy people tend to put 30-50% of their income into savings.
I agree, a company can't pay it's workers more than it can afford. What I disagree with is that more and more of a companies expenditures on people employed are going to those at the top, instead of those who do the grunt work. When the CEO gets a 100% raise, why should the workers not also demand a 100% raise?
Your argument is so incoherent at this point, even you don't know what it is.
My hypothesis for an explanation is relatively simple: When people know a little more of what the movie is about, they are better able to make an informed decision about whether to see it.
A vague trailer isn't informative, a more specific trailer is informative. People don't want major spoilers, but even from a hindsight perspective the destruction of that planet isn't the real spoiler, it would be the revelation of Ender's dreams.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
I like how you think this anecdote is more important that the fact that union workers average $10,000 more per year than their non-union counterparts.
Convince me why it's in my best interest to give up $10,000/year, and give up my medical and retirement benefits. You said you have my best interests at heart, but that doesn't sound very convincing.