A previous case had been dismissed, but with the July, 2012 European Court of Justice ruling affirming the right to sell digital property, it's got a bit of traction. I have no idea how fast the German/European courts move or what the status of the suit is, but it's interesting to see that they probably have a decent shot unless Valve pre-empts them by instituting a buy-back option, but even that might not satisfy the courts.
Once Steam has to accommodate European gamers, it's only a matter of time until the option is available in other regions.
I hear ya, but I don't think anyone has suggested or done that. Efforts to make environments more inclusive are often painted as being horrific, but they almost never actually are.
For example, look at the OP, then look at the actual implementation in the school, and it's extremely obvious that what he imagines is going on is not the truth.
I'm not investing money into a console and games that they can decide they don't want to support anymore, which turns off my console because it can no longer update every 24 hours.
That's what gets me about it. If they decide to turn off the service, I'm SOL.
I still play some PS1 and PS2 games, some of which are over 10 years old. I don't trust Microsoft enough that they'll support XBone more than a year or two once their console after that comes out.
While i understand the notion i have several gripes about this.
1. Those holidays happen on weekends AFAIK. How can a school forbid students to do things outside of it?
2. Banning a specific holiday because it might offend someone is ridiculous. If we do that we must ban all religious holidays then. I'm sure that someone finds Easter or Ramadan offensive.
3. Because a kid has two moms or doesn't have a dad, other kids with dads shouldn't celebrate father's day? Really? That is stupidity of highest order. I have broken all relations with my father (long story, irrelevant to the discussion), and thus i should get miffed at my neighbor who celebrates father's day by taking his awesome dad out for a night of fun?
4. You just cannot appease everyone, because you are trying to appease humanity, and that is impossible.
I see nothing wrong with a school not celebrating holidays. Frankly, if I had children, I'd rather have them spend their time in school learning and leave celebrating holidays to their time with their families.
The school isn't banning people from celebrating at home, as far as I can tell. It's saying the holidays aren't going to be celebrated at the school.
I prefer what they do at my children's school, they celebrate everything, Easter, Diwali, Ramadan, Passover, Chinese New Year(and so on). They teach tolerance and respect for all cultures and most of these celebrations are lots of fun.
My children's school is a typical Australian government run primary school. Not teach children about the other cultures that you live with and not participating in and sharing your culture is a good way to breed racism, mistrust and ignorance.
I am an atheist (its up to my children to make thier own decision on what they believe) but I also acknowledge others believe differently to me and I am happy to participate if invited especially if its...
Did you catch the part about what the school that banned Mother's Day did for Mother's Day?
Here is again:
Quote:
On this Mother's Day, children had to write down the names of the family members that made the most difference in their lives and hang the notes up in a tree in the gym.
I'd love to hear the exact nature of the harm that this policy is causing, which we're so up in arms over.
Just because YOU don't like doesn't mean the rest of us want to abandon it. Microsoft's service charge on used games is going to fail in Europe. They directly examined software and the ability to resell software you've bought. This isn't "oh, they made this ruling on banana's". This is a ruling based on software. Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world and is only part of Europe.
If I lend a book to a friend, or a DVD they get the same experience as I did. They don't owe the author, or the production company a cent. That copy is bought and paid for.
If I give away my copy of Mass Effect to a friend, then it's not the developer's business that I do that.
It is if you are party to a licensing agreement that prohibits that.
Quote:
If they are going to insist on charging a licence to play a game, then the consumer better get something out of the deal, because right now we don't get anything except treated like idiots.
You do get something out of it. You get to play the game.
This isn't new. This is something you've been doing for years, now. You're just finally realizing it.
Again, first sale doctrine has trumped EULA's in court cases. Gaming companies don't get to decide what the law is or just declare certain things to be true that the rest of society has decided otherwise.
There have cases where other standards have struck down sections of EULA's. Just because a company puts something in their EULA does not give it the force of law, even if you click "agree".
But it's not illegal. He didn't say how he was lending the program.
If I let my roommate use my computer to write a paper, that's technically lending the program. They didn't purchase the hardware or software, they'd didn't agree to the EULA. It isn't inherently illegal to let people use your stuff.
Lending =/= copying, in all cases.
I think it's more along the lines of how we don't discuss torrent sites - they can be used legitimately, on occasion, but by and large if you're using a torrent site/giving someone a copy of your Office suite, it's breaking some law or regulation somewhere.
He didn't say torrent, pirate, or distribute. He said lend.
But it's not illegal. He didn't say how he was lending the program.
If I let my roommate use my computer to write a paper, that's technically lending the program. They didn't purchase the hardware or software, they'd didn't agree to the EULA. It isn't inherently illegal to let people use your stuff.
On this Mother's Day, children had to write down the names of the family members that made the most difference in their lives and hang the notes up in a tree in the gym.
That's what this school did this year. How horrendous!
See that's the thing, paying for a product licence to have PERMISSION to play a game would make you think there is a service involved. I have yet to see what services developers are offering for cutting out the brick-and-mortar's ability to compete for my dollar.
Microsoft isn't going to provide anything. They just want their cut.
In the US, there have been more court cases that invalidated the EULA than upheld them. Quite a few provision in EULA's have been struck down in the courts on grounds that they violate the UCC.
Just because Microsoft puts a license on it, does not mean that license is going to be legally binding, or that every clause will be upheld.
The European Court of Justice also ruled last summer that the first sale doctrine does apply to digital software, unless the original purchase included an expiration date (making it a rental or lease). The license transferred with the software, but it couldn't prohibit the sale.
The majority of actions by companies to limit the movement of data have been to reject the realities of digital media and try to place controls and prohibitions that have routinely failed.
I'm not spending my money to encourage more steps backwards.
Look I liken the experience of a video game to a movie.
If I buy a movie that I think is great, and want to talk about it with my friends/share the experience I can lend them the DVD and they can watch it. Free of charge. Because I bought the DVD, it's mine because I paid for it. So if I want to give it away, or resell it then that's fantastic I can do that. I paid for the DVD, it's mine.
Now take a look at an Xbone game. I buy Mass Effect XBone Edition. It installs on my XBone. I play the game, I think it's fantastic and I can't wait for the sequels. I decide to lend my copy to a friend. Suddenly my friend has to pay full retail to play the game?
Uh what? I already paid for that game. Just like I already paid for a DVD. If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
Scott's argument is that because the producers of games get to decide the relationship between you and the product. This is the transaction they want to have, so we either have to accept it or leave.
In a way, he's right. We as consumers have a choice if we don't like XBone (which I love now as a name). Don't buy it.
I don't like the always-online requirement either. In 5 years, if Microsoft decides to turn off their online component, because they just launched a new system and want you to buy that one, your XBone and all the games you have for it are now pieces of plastic that no longer work.
thejeff, I don't really care about Mother's day in school or out. It falls into the category I call "Hallmark Holidays" that were literally lobbied for by the greeting card industry.
However, this does fit into the general realm of the tyranny of good intentions. Which is what political correctness is all about. Which is why it's on topic to post that quote.
Are you claiming that banning Mother's Day is worse than say... the working conditions on the railroad construction crews of the mid-1800's?
Couldn't I just as easily say "why don't people just stop saying offensive things?
I believe Meatrace was indicating this is an impossible standard to consider since there is no way to know in all circumstances what will be offensive or who may be listening.
Except that wasn't the only thing I posted in quotation marks, is it? I even acknowledged your point within those quotation marks and addressed it. Reply to the whole statement, don't just cherry pick the part that looks best for your point.
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?
Probably.
Quote:
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?
If I had to guess, it would be the latter.
Are you saying that they cannot focus on both? Obviously they believe that the used game market is a significant untapped source of revenue, or they wouldn't be pursuing it. Why are you insistent on them focusing only on a single cost factor?
For one, most articles I read about the used game market seem to think it actually adds to the industries value, not detracts from it. So I'd actually argue that they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to cut into it and eliminate it.
For example, Gamestop makes 41% of their profits from used games, but they account for only 28% of their sales. Their mark up on used games is much higher. A significant amount from the sell-back to Gamestop goes into new games, helping to boost sales. Microsoft and Sony want to position themselves as middle-men in those sales, but not actually add anything to the transaction.
Compare what they're doing to the movie industry. If I wait 12-15 months for a movie, I can basically watch it as part of my subscription fee to Netflix, or pay a couple dollars to rent it on itunes and share it with others. That's a very small fraction of the profit they would have made on opening day. And there were other price drops along the way, like letting me have the movie permanently on DVD. Games, at best drop to $20 new, but only after 2-3 years, sometimes even longer.
Used games aren't eating into sales nearly as much as they think they are. Trying to solve their shrinking profit margins by focusing on used games is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a 5 gallon bucket. Yes, you will technically make a difference.
Smart people make bad decisions all the time. They even make them in large groups.
I've cancelled my Xbox live subscription. Their multiplayer games have been dying off too fast, and all of the other services I use there I can get access to without their fee.
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.
I don't think anyone expects that wiping out the used game market will single-handedly cause sales to increase by 500% in 5 years, so why pretend that's what they're thinking?
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?
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."
BZZZT sorry. Thanks for playing though.
You could just as easily say that. But you'd be wrong.
I have absolutely no idea what will offend someone. We've established that it's subjective, circumstantial, and contextual. I've never had any more violent reaction to a word I've spoken than the f word, quietly, in a private conversation, in the next room from the person who overheard and shouted me down. Neither I nor anyone I know that are adults consider that word offensive. Someone else did, even spoken at hushed volumes by a complete stranger 30 feet from them.
Did that woman have a right to be offended? Sure. Did she have a right to shout me out and tell me what to say or not to say around my friends? Absolutely not.
People be crazy. Saying "don't say anything offensive" is as useful as saying "don't ever have any variety of contact with another human being".
Irontruth wrote:
I think the world would be a better place if we encouraged and practiced empathy.
I'm sure it would be. It's a matter of how you reinforce it socially. Positive reinforcement, i.e. encouragement, when people say something you agree with seems more logical and more likely to have the desired effect than punishing those who say something you don't agree with. Especially since none of us are in a position to judge the thoughts and feelings of others anywhere but in our own minds.
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%*$!!@.
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.
Yes, they have. The proliferation of middleware engines is evidence of this. The reality is that producing bleeding-edge titles requires a crap-load of man-hours, many of those spent invested in the development of new engines to take advantage of ever-developing hardware capabilities.
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
No, you said that video game companies were spending too many man-hours because they refused to invest in lowering the labor requirements for producing new games. I agreed that they're spending a lot of man-hours, but I pointed out that this is primarily because it takes a lot of man-hours to produce a modern, bleeding-edge game, and that game developers are already spending a lot of money on middleware products that reduce the amount of labor they need to put into a new title.
If they could reduce the amount of time and money it takes to make games, they would. They're not stupid. Making bleeding-edge games requires developing new technologies, and that's an expensive process - moreso today than ever before.
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.
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."
BZZZT sorry. Thanks for playing though.
You could just as easily say that. But you'd be wrong.
I have absolutely no idea what will offend someone. We've established that it's subjective, circumstantial, and contextual. I've never had any more violent reaction to a word I've spoken than the f word, quietly, in a private conversation, in the next room from the person who overheard and shouted me down. Neither I nor anyone I know that are adults consider that word offensive. Someone else did, even spoken at hushed volumes by a complete stranger 30 feet from them.
Did that woman have a right to be offended? Sure. Did she have a right to shout me out and tell me what to say or not to say around my friends? Absolutely not.
People be crazy. Saying "don't say anything offensive" is as useful as saying "don't ever have any variety of contact with another human being".
Irontruth wrote:
I think the world would be a better place if we encouraged and practiced empathy.
I'm sure it would be. It's a matter of how you reinforce it socially. Positive reinforcement, i.e. encouragement, when people say something you agree with seems more logical and more likely to have the desired effect than punishing those who say something you don't agree with. Especially since none of us are in a position to judge the thoughts and feelings of others anywhere but in our own minds.
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.
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.
Yes, they have. The proliferation of middleware engines is evidence of this. The reality is that producing bleeding-edge titles requires a crap-load of man-hours, many of those spent invested in the development of new engines to take advantage of ever-developing hardware capabilities.
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
You respond that I'm wrong, they're 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.
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.
It was better than I thought it would be...I actually liked that I was spoiled on the Khan reveal, as I would have been more irritated with all of J.J. Abrams denials had I found out during the movie.
** spoiler omitted **
Spoiler:
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.
With Sebastian's spoiler above, is that more or less of a spoiler than the thread title?
Hard for me to say without seeing the movie. Maybe someone who has seen the movie can chime in to confirm that the first 30 minutes of Cumberbatch being on screen involve him saying "my name is Keyser Soze, I'm really not Kahn" and then, when confronted, he laughs and says "Sucka! I am Kahn!" In that case, the thread title seems like a spoiler. But, if everyone is saying "holy cow, it's Kahn" when he first shows up, or he kicks down the door and yells "IT'S KAHHHHHHHHN!!!", I have a hard time thinking of the title of this thread as a spoiler.
Spoilered, just in case:
Spoiler:
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.
All I know is,this has soured me on KS in general. Fool me once, I suppose.
Too bad I have already ordered from the Dwarvenforge KS. Here's hoping they don't screw up their delivery like Reaper has.
No more Kickstarters for me. Live and learn.
Bill - what in particular has soured you? - is it just the delay in receipt of the minis?
If it is just the delay then I would suggest being ready to gird your loins for similar disappointment on the Dwarven Forge KS. I'd say there is a fair chance that they'll not meet their time target.
In both cases though, rejoice as I'm sure you'd agree that from Reaper and Dwarven Forge the goods will eventually arrive and will be quality as advertised.
The ever increasing delay. March became April which became May which is likely to become June or July. If they had said "Summer 2013" I probably wouldn't have pledged because I'm not in the habit of giving money with no results for that long.
Both KS's I've back are excellent deals. That's why I backed them. But I expect companies to keep their commitments, included estimated delivery.
As far as Dwarven Forge is concerned, I guess that remains to be seen. If it is standard operating procedure to be consistently very late on Kickstarter, then KS is not for me. Thus, no additional backings.
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.
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.
I'm neither particularly surprised or frustrated at the moment.
I simply agree with folks that think there should be more communication on the matter of delays, and I disagree with folks that are trying to say that Kickstarter isn't (or hasn't been allowed to be co-opted into) a preorder system.
If you have no issue throwing money at folks and not expecting accountability or timely delivery, that's fine. More power to you.
But lambasting folks who do expect promised deliveries, who expect them to be delivered on the schedule that they were promised, and ultimately, who expect timely communication when those are not met? Shame on you.
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.
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.
Kickstarters marketed as preorders are preorders regardless of how much you might wish to tell people they're not.
Itontruth wrote:
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.
Paizo might not, but, then, explain why plenty of other established gaming companies are using Kickstarter as their preorder system?
Really, it has nothing to do with Kickstarter taking a cut of their profits.
It has to do with risk vs. reward on behalf of the creator.
Traditional preorders traditionally take more time than a Kickstarter, and don't have the hype factor.
With a Kickstarter, the creator doesn't have to assume any of the risk themselves - they're fully compensated up front.
Itontruth wrote:
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.
Because major retailers have resources that most project creators on Kickstarter don't.
Itontruth wrote:
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.
And your point here? Kickstarter is the middleman. We know this. Kickstarter's Terms of Service are clear - they're not liable for anything,...
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.
Citizen Betts, I notice that you, too, found the capitalized "THEY" a bit telling.
Emphasizing that if they find it ok why not for anyone else? racism, they are as bad as what they gripe about. Any thing but equal is racist, and you all seem to support that.
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.
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.
Doing research means:
1) less likely to get burned (but it can still happen)
2) less likely to be surprised when setbacks happen, because you'll know what kind of setbacks can happen
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.
I understand the point he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he can't separate what he wants his point to be from my point. They are directly linked and he can't just wish them to be separate.
A white person who uses the word n~&$%+ is (perhaps unintentionally) invoking the history behind it.
You're talking to Andrew.
I understand the point he's trying to make as well.
We've been through this before.
It's that actual racism is a thing of the past and all claims of it now are just tools for minorities to attack whites with. Racism against whites is the only racism that matters today.
Not at all, i simply believe in true equality where we are all held to one standard.ONE. I find the creation of what is ok for the white man and what is ok for the black man to be inherently racist. You see me as racist for demanding one standard. i see you as racist for wanting to make people separated by race
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.
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.
Regardless of what you call the relationship, Reaper took people's money with the promise of future delivery of product. That's a customer relationship of some sort or another. As a customer who has prepaid for a product, there is an expectation of reasonable communication about delivery timing.
Being late is understandable. Communicating it terribly and in a mis-leading manner is far less so.
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.
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.
I don't think it's that more people are more easily offended. Instead, it's that courtesy, manners, and empathy have become much more rare.
Mostly thanks to the television, mobile phones, channels like MTV and Commercials that make beautiful people look like Gods and normal people look like non-important boring creeps, mostly if they use ugly or normal people they are meant for comical reasons...
Television is the biggest reason people changed, especially commercials and Jersey Shore-like shows which are non-stop on every channel these days, about antisocial people that rule and are "cool", just take a look at that horrid snookie.
People learn that its OK to scream at your boyfriend/husband or cheat on your friends because in those shows they do it as well...
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.
I understand the point he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he can't separate what he wants his point to be from my point. They are directly linked and he can't just wish them to be separate.
A white person who uses the word n#@*#& is (perhaps unintentionally) invoking the history behind it.
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.
