Xbox is a no buy for the lending reasons above. If I'm "somewhat" interested in a game my buddy has and he brings it over for me to check out and I got a message to pay for just trying it, yeah, I'd be pissed.
Game companies came up with a completely legal solution to that issue decades ago.
They're called demos.
If I buy a work of art, and allow my friends to look upon it, should I then pay the artist more because I've done this?
Artists typically operate with the expectation that the sale of their work means that quite a few people will look at it.
If you buy a print of an artwork, there are certainly limitations placed on what you can do with that print.
If I buy a book, and lend it to a friend, is he on the hook for paying a portion of the cover price when he reads it?
Arguably, he should be compensating the author. The realities of the book trade make this prohibitive, but that doesn't mean it's not something worth considering.
EDIT: There is a separate argument to be made that encouraging the spread of knowledge (here, in book form) is its own good, and that encouraging it is more worthwhile than ensuring the opposing right (that of the author to be compensated) is protected. This is one of the ways we justify the existence of libraries.
Let's remember it's our corrupt governments who let gigantic multinationals who don't pay taxes anyway to ream us as much as they can, as often as they can. The whole IP thing is law, so legally, Scott is correct. Morally, it's bloody bankrupt.
Ethically, it's actually quite sound.
Well if they GIVE me a car, then it is mine. ;) If I rent a car, then I would return it. Renting something is not the same as buying it. I go to a store, I buy a game, it is mine.
So if Paizo said we all have to just give back all our Pathfinder books to them because they own the rights, thats OK right? We never bought the books, according to you.
You realize that Paizo absolutely gets to set limits on how their intellectually property is used, right? When you buy one of their PDFs, there are limitations placed on you regarding how the content within may be used.
Thanks for mentioning that.
So all the food I bought, all the toilet paper I bought and used, I have to return because I never really owned it?
Did you license that toilet paper or food?
Are you really following what's being said, here? Or are you just kind of pretending to?
At least you are consistent in backing the wrong horse, Scott.
The one trend I've observed is that whenever a horde of angry nerds materializes, I tend to disagree with their position.
I'm okay with this.
EDIT: And let's be clear - this has nothing to do with this being an Xbox (as opposed to a Playstation). I own both consoles and like both of them to a roughly equal degree (full disclosure: I've had my 360 for longer). If Sony had come forward with a similar policy, I'd be defending that, too.
Yeah, as long as i respect the laws regarding copyrights (no multiplication, presenting the work in it's entirety or parts thereof as my own), it's mine.
There are multiple problems with this. First, copyright also encompasses what you can do with the IP you are granted license to. Second, no, it's not yours.
If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.
Sure you are. You do it all the time.
I think most people would agree if they spend money on a toaster, or a video game, or whatever, you bought it, you own it, you should be able to do what you want with it.
You didn't buy the actual game, you don't own the actual game. What "most people" think isn't really important.
I spent my money on something, I own it.
Okay. Go on iTunes. Pay $0.99 for the most popular song on the service. Now take that song, copy it, and sell it for $0.25 on your new website.
Or you could accept that giving someone money does not mean that you are the owner of whatever they hand you in return.
Alternatively, go to an Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Give them money. They will give you a car. Now see how long it takes them to be upset that you haven't returned it. Better yet, try selling that car to someone else!
Come on, guys. Is this really the sum total of all the thought you've put into this?
Imagine you buy a toaster. The people responsible for that toaster get some of the money you paid for it, and you now own the toaster. You can do (nearly) anything you want with it. You can legally sell it to someone else. And it is ethical to do so, because you are giving up the use of that toaster. You will no longer be able to make toast.
Now imagine you buy a video game. The people responsible for that game get some of the money you paid for it, but you don't own that game. It is a copy of a piece of intellectual property for which you own a license for its use. You could sell it to someone else (assuming you had a way to transfer it, such as handing them the game's DVD), but you don't have the legal right to do so. This is because it is not expected that you will get indefinite use out of a video game. Most games receive a certain amount of play (a full single-player playthrough, for instance) and are then largely ignored. Game publishers (and developers, and retailers, etc.) depend on people purchasing their game from them in order to generate revenue. If you have a friend who wants to play a video game you own, by giving him that game you are ensuring that the people responsible for that game do not receive any benefit from his having experienced it. Effectively, multiple people were able to enjoy the full extent of the product, while only paying for a single person's use.
Mind you, there is some industry disagreement on whether this ultimately benefits or hurts publishers/developers/retailers, but that's something for the industry to figure out. The ethical thrust of the matter is that you paid for the ability to enjoy the experience the game offers, but by finishing that experience and passing it to another individual to enjoy to the same degree, you are depriving the people responsible for the game of their ability to be compensated for someone enjoying the product of their labor.
So there are clear legal and ethical arguments for charging a "second install fee" or whatever they decide to call it. You don't necessarily have to agree with all of those arguments, but I find very little support for calling such a practice "evil". At worst, it's pretty run-of-the-mill capitalism.
Because it's my game. I bought it, thus i own it. As long as i respect copyright by not multiplying it, i can do whatever i damn want with it.
Yeah, I'm going to stop you right there.
Saying, "I bought it, thus I own it," doesn't make it true. You don't get to unilaterally set the terms of your purchase. The publisher decides exactly what it is you are giving them money for. In some cases, that takes the form of the ability to do whatever you want with the game software. In some cases, however, it grants you a non-transferable personal license to use that software.
If that means giving it to my friend so he can play it, it's mine, thus nobody's business what i do with my things.
You don't own that software. You own a license to a single copy of that software. And there are a lot of really good reasons why that is the case. Can you think of a few?
As for Joe, in his defense, he has been up for 40+ hours and pissed out of his mind. I'm sure a more coherent video is coming. But his point stands. PS4 is going to murder Xbox one. Murder.
I don't see any indication of that. Neither seems to have a marketable advantage over the other. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either working for one of the two companies, or is talking out of their ass.
Used Kinect several times on a friend's console. Not impressed.
Kinect was the fastest selling consumer electronic device because it was pretty novel and well advertised. It turned out to be pretty much rubbish, but mostly because of software running motion recognition. The device in on itself is very cool.
The Kinect continues to sell well. Microsoft understands its broad appeal, and they're leveraging that to sell the base console now.
What does keeping my hard drive has to do with the fact that games today go from 10GB and up? and that a 500GB hard drive is going to fill up. Fast.
I think most people who own Xboxes have under 25 full titles in their library. For those who anticipate a much higher need for storage space, I'm sure they'll release larger hard drives, just as they have with the 360 and PS3.
"The true measure of how much I appreciate something I like is by showing everyone how much I hate everything else!"
He has very little to say and manages to do so in a way that paints himself as a huge jerk. You can do much better with your thoughts than that. You don't want him as your brain's spokesperson.
Second install fees means that you can't borrow your game to a friend without him paying money for it. That is evil.
Okay. Why is it evil?
People don't like kinect.
Kinect is incredibly popular. In fact, it's so incredibly popular that it literally holds the Guinness World Record for being the fastest selling consumer electronics device of all time.
So unless by "people" you mean "the exact subset of people who don't like Kinect", then no.
500GB is nothing. I have filled my 2TB hard drive to the brim with stuff.
Cool! You get to keep your 2 TB hard drive!
It's basically identical to the PS4. Like, functionally equivalent. We won't have any idea which is more practically powerful until five years from now when we start hitting the limits of the hardware.
It's not backwards compatible.
Neither is the PS4. Backwards compatibility is a very computationally expensive feature - to such an extent that nearly every case of native backwards compatibility support involves simply stuffing all of the hardware from the previous console into the new one.
It may require mandatory installs and "second install fees" (not confirmed).
Mandatory installs is a fantastic idea, and it ships with a 500 GB hard drive.
I don't know what the "second install fees" will be, but I can't even remember the last time I bought a used game. I also believe that there are some really good justifications for charging consumers to transfer games, so this doesn't bother me one bit.
It requires Kinect to be attached at all times
It ships with a Kinect sensor. Why is this a problem?
Its name is stupid.
Its hardware is decent, but nothing groundbreaking.
Again, its hardware is essentially on-par with the PS4. They both sport 8 gb of memory, they both run an 8-core AMD CPU.
I'm seeing a lot of bandwagoning going on here, and not a lot of thought behind it. Unless you're planning on skipping this console generation entirely by sticking to PC gaming - in which case, what could they possibly have advertised that would lure you away from PCs?
Andrew R wrote:
Are you under the impression that the Transparency and Open Government directive you linked to promises us that leaks of information pertaining to sensitive matters of national security would not be prosecuted?
I genuinely want to know if you thought that would be the case. Nowhere in that link does the President promise anything of the sort, so if you got the impression that "open government" essentially meant, "We're just gonna declassify everything," I want to know where you got that impression from. Did you really think that's what this meant?
You know what I think? I think you don't care. I think you just picked a really lazy attack on the President's credibility because you can't find a better one. You thought to yourself, "Ooh, here's some ammo!" and went for it, even though you knew your criticism didn't have any basis in reality, because you don't give half a damn about the truth.
Andrew R wrote:
Are you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?
If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?
Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?
By which you mean he mostly shot a lot of elephants.
Are you still trying to insist that what most people mean when they use the word "adventurer" to describe someone is the same as what a DM means by the word "adventurer" when he uses it to refer to a D&D player character?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that what your typical D&D player character goes through is comparable to Knut Haugland?
Come on, man.
When we (as people in the real world) say "adventurer", we mean something hugely different from what the DM at a D&D table refers to the player characters as "adventurers". You get that, right?
An "adventurer" in the real world maybe explores some new territory or sets some new world records. Richard Branson is who we call an "adventurer".
An "adventurer" in D&D can pretty much count on going toe-to-toe with multiple dragons by the time he's finished his career. And, at that point, he has personally killed hundreds of creatures, dangerous and fantastical.
Andrew R wrote:
Exactly. if that word is so terrible why do THEY use it so often?
It's not terrible in and of itself. It is terrible because it was used as a verbal implement of horrific oppression and a symbol of that legacy for centuries (and still is, in some places).
In any oppressed group, part of the process of empowering that group and negating some of the power of its oppressors is to reclaim the language that served to oppress them. You see this in a lot of disadvantaged groups. The arrangement of letters isn't what makes a word or phrase racist. It's the intent, the application, and the reception that determine whether it is racist in purpose.
THEY use it because they have reclaimed it, and because when they use it, it is not being used to oppress others. I'm not defending its use (I think it'd probably be better if it faded into history at this point), but there is a clear reason why it's okay for many black people to use it.
I'm going to ask you to go back and read what's already been said. I think you're missing some crucial pieces of the discussion. I'll be happy to help clear up specific questions you have, but much of this is already asked-and-answered, as it were.
It's not important that most parties have, at some point, worked for the "greater good" or on behalf of a higher belief. It is noteworthy that nearly all of them have, at some point, tackled incredibly dangerous challenges, repeatedly, for the sake of personal gain in a way that no actual person would do unless they exhibited the traits I outlined (psychotically-suicidal, foolish, etc.).
This is a direct result of the dichotomy between how actual people behave, and how people controlling imaginary people behave, particularly within the construct of a fantasy roleplaying game where this behavior is expected and even encouraged. The disincentives that might be present in the real world (the danger of actual death, for instance) do not threaten the people playing imaginary characters in a fantasy world, and even though most try to exhibit some semblance of "realistic" portrayal of their characters, the desire to act in such an unconventional way seeps through.
This has nothing to do with whether I love adventuring. Of course I love adventuring. Who doesn't? It's one of the main reasons I play D&D. What I'm not a fan of is looking too closely at the game world, or expecting it to be highly "realistic". Those are not reasonable expectations to have of a fantasy roleplaying game, and it is almost unfailing that people who play a fantasy roleplaying game with those expectations will eventually become disillusioned by the experience's failure to live up to what they came in expecting. It's much better to go in with the understanding that you are playing a game, and that this game is - by necessity - a highly imperfect attempt at simulating a fantasy world. Enjoy it for what it is, rather than what you wish it could have been.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's kind of sad that of all the scandals "rocking" the Obama administration, one of them isn't the 100-f~@@ing-day hunger strike by a bunch of dudes who appear to have been, in my humble opinion, locked away for 11 years for no apparent reason
The only reason any of these things are actually "scandals" to begin with is that the Republican party thinks it can score political points with its base and some moderates by using them against the Obama administration.
The Republican party doesn't think it can win any points by taking a position that could easily be labeled as "soft on terror", even if it is a chance to be critical of the President. So Guantanamo hunger strikes don't make the cut.
These aren't scandals because they're actually scandalous. These are scandals because they are opportunities.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Come on, you know me.
I'm at least that desperate.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Thanks, but it's nothing compared to the class of throwing your hands up in the air and storming out of a thread full of people (save Cobalt and Andrew_R) who think the things you're saying are silly! I can only aspire to that.
I am so confused by this comment.
Are you trying to be super-patriotic? Or trying to object to what I said? Did you miss the line in there that reads, "You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups,"?
You, also, apparently missed the discussions where it was made clear that acting in this way makes sense if you are acting for a higher purpose (as groups like the SEALs presumably do), and qualifies as "insane and suicidal" typically when the primary motivation is wealth, or personal power.
Andrew R wrote:
If a word or phrase is not pejorative in intent, application, or reception, I have a really hard time seeing how you could label it "racist".
It is absolutely possible for a black person to use the n-word in a racist manner. But I think it's safe to say that, the vast majority of time the word is used by a black person, it is not racist at all.
Broken Arrow wrote:
Then I'll drop it. If you say that it is genuinely only explicit references to sexuality that bother you, regardless of whether they refer to heterosexuality or non-heterosexuality, I'll take you at your word. I'm sorry if I came across as needlessly hostile or badgering; I should have made more of an effort to understand where you were coming from.
Broken Arrow wrote:
Just to be clear - I'm not opposed to including a gay iconic - my position is a preference for no sexual references.
A sexual reference can be as innocuous as "Bob is married to the local seamstress, Jane." That sentence gives you a basic idea of the relationship between the two, including the fact that both of them are attracted to the opposite gender. The Paizo folk haven't written anything explicit about any homosexual relationships.
I'd wager that you do want sexual references, since a world in which the authors aren't allowed to tell you who is married to whom would really feel like it had some awkward gaps (not to mention throwing a wrench into tons of adventure plot elements). But for some reason you're objecting to innocuous references to homosexuality, while at the same time offering no objection to innocuous references to heterosexuality. It's a puzzling stance, and I've asked you a few times now to explain how you reconcile it without revealing bigotry as an underlying motivation.
I'm happy that the materiel was silent on the matter - I can add what fits my campaign world.
AGAIN, by that logic the campaign setting (and adventure, and novel, and chronicle, etc.) authors should leave out as many details as humanly possible, because you like it when the material is silent on characterization. Because if they don't mention anything about vocal timbre, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, hair length, eye color, personality quirks, or preferred shampoo scent, it gives you more flexibility to fit your campaign world (as if you are powerless to change those things as a DM).
So an explanation is needed, here, and you continually refuse to provide one.
The rest of your post is pretty much what I predicted - your ability to twist words to conform to your suspicions.
I haven't twisted anything. If I wanted to twist what you said, I'd already be calling you a bigot. But I'm not, because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm giving you the opportunity to explain the things you've said here. You have continually refused to take that opportunity, which isn't doing you any favors. So I'll offer it to you again: prove me wrong. Explain why you object to relatively innocent - subtle, even! - references to homosexuality, while at the same time offering essentially no objection to references - including overt ones - to heterosexuality, without revealing bigotry as one of the underlying reasons for your position.
That's my challenge. You should be fully capable of meeting it.
I know a simple refutal of your assersions wont satisfy you, but it's quite clear nothing will.
I've explained exactly what will satisfy me. All you have to provide is a coherent explanation.
My real motive? When I see people saying - "By the way, we've suddenly decided that each of our iconics is going to represent a minority group" - my instinct is that it's PC driven.
But your own words have shown us that there's clearly more going on that just that. Even a cursory knowledge of the iconics would be enough to confirm that their sexuality has received very little attention, and that your accusations of their being generic characterizations of LGBT people is completely baseless. And I'm assuming that you wouldn't have come barreling into a thread like this unless you were at least superficially familiar with the iconics.
I simply don't have any deep-seated ulterior motive for my original post. Your attempts to attribute anything sinister in my posts reflects more about your character than mine.
Then it should be trivially easy for you to explain yourself as outlined above. You're making this more difficult than it needs to be.
And, importantly, without context that scene doesn't really mean anything. There was no plat reveal involved, just some special effects. If you've read the book, you know what that scene was, but it's hardly a spoiler for you. And if you haven't read the books, you don't really have any idea what that scene represents, so it still doesn't spoil anything.
Broken Arrow wrote:
You haven't used any; my mention of bigotry was only in reference to John Kretzer's prediction that I was planning on calling you one.
Which isn't to say that you're clean, here. I suspect that your reason for objecting to the inclusion or highlighting of homosexuality in Pathfinder is grounded in bigotry (especially since, if it weren't, you would be the first person to be objecting for reasons unrelated to personal bigotry).
2. You're here to ridicule my position as opposed to enter into a discussion.
The discussion has been had. Now, you could clarify your position and explain exactly how your reasons for not wanting to include homosexual relationships in Pathfinder is not bigoted. That would be cool.
But, frankly, I think any such explanation would ring hollow. There are a lot of things you have said that don't make much sense.
This says to me you aren't actually prepared to listen so much as simply looking to twist my words to what you want to the inevitable cry of "redneck!"
I'm not sure where the "redneck" bit comes from, but go ahead, explain your reasoning.
3. No, Paizo don't have to justify their position. But this is a discussion board. Paizo, as a diligent and forward thinking company, is open to discussion regarding their products.
If they don't have to justify their position, why was your first post in this thread a demand for justification for including homosexual iconics?
4. My ulterior motive of calling it PC BS? Because I hate PC BS.
You're in luck, then! This isn't PC BS!
Adding one of each type (which is where the thread was going) smacks of PC as opposed to genuine interest in the inclusivity of their products.
Okay, so, just out of curiosity, how would you tell the difference between "PC BS" and a genuine attempt at inclusiveness?
Furthermore, it's pretty clear from Paizo's (surprisingly impassioned) response to bigoted criticism of their decision that they are not doing this for reasons of political correctness, and rather are genuinely supportive of equality, tolerance, and inclusiveness.
The logical conclusion of my question can be seen in the previous 50 or so posts. Why include LGBT? Why not include the others? Why include it at all?
Because adding interesting details is what fictional world creators do, and a character's sexuality is an important aspect of their person, and because it lets members of the Pathfinder LGBT community know their sexual orientation exists in the game world and is largely accepted. I don't want to speak for Paizo, but I wager that one of the primary purposes of the iconics is to provide characters that players think are interesting and identifiable.
People are free to add their own flavour. If anything, it's more restrictive.
See, this right here is how I know these aren't your real reasons for opposing the inclusion of homosexual iconics. This, right here. Because you could have just used that line in reference to anything.
"Why mention the iconics' skin color? Just illustrate them with line drawings. That lets people add their own flavor. Why be restrictive like that, Paizo?"
"Paizo shouldn't give the iconics genders. Don't bother illustrating them, just describe them in written form with gender-neutral pronouns and let us add the rest of the flavor. Why be restrictive like that, Paizo?"
"You shouldn't describe the iconics' voices, Paizo. What if we want one of the male iconics to have an uncharacteristically high-pitched voice, but you've told us in their write-up that they're a solid baritone? Let us add the flavor! Why be restrictive like that, Paizo?"
I should hope you can see where I'm going with this. You don't complain about the above examples, because it's stupid to complain about them. Paizo writes fiction, and the iconics are designed to be whole, fictional people. There are other aspects of the campaign setting and other NPCs for whom you can flex your creative muscles to "fill in the blanks", but not the iconics (though, of course, it's your game; if you wanted to make your Valeros an Asian-esque woman, Paizo isn't going to arrest you).
So, of course, that begs the question: Why are you specifically complaining about this in reference to sexual orientation? I mean, using your "logic" you should object just as forcefully to Paizo telling you what skin color the iconics have, what their gender is, or how their voice sounds, because by providing you with that information they are restricting you. And yet here you are, complaining about sexual orientation (and only sexual orientation).
So come on. Be honest. That's not why you care about the fact that the iconics have their sexual orientation buried somewhere in the mounds of fiction written and illustrated about them. Your real reason is something else entirely. So why don't you tell us what it really is? You say you want a discussion, but it's tough to take what you say at face-value when you pull out these sorts of inconsistencies.
If I want to play a lesbian-paladin, why is paizo telling me she's actually waiting for gender re-assignment?
Paizo isn't telling you anything of the sort, unless you decide you want to play one of the iconics. Which is basically identical to choosing to play a Star Wars RPG as Han Solo and complaining because the writers told you he's human, and not an Ewok.
5. Plenty of people gave me justification AFTER I asked the question. That's the whole point. I even favourited a few. They made me realise some of the players appreciated Paizo's efforts and felt more included as a result. Amazing what an open discussion yields.
So why would you automatically leap to "PC BS" by default? Why is political correctness with reference to non-heterosexuality even an issue for you, considering how marginalized the LGBT community is in most of the country (and the world)? Even if it were for the sake of political correctness (which it obviously isn't), why would you care? What damage could it possibly be doing to you, or to your Pathfinder game? And if you're objecting on behalf of the LGBT community, is that something you have the right to do, considering that LGBT forum members have (at least to my knowledge) universally supported and lauded the inclusion of homosexual iconics?
Do they? Most - though not all - post-WoW MMORPGs have basically used the same template as WoW but have not succeeded, or if they have it's been at a tiny fraction of the popularity. The question is are they too similar to WoW, so people don't want to play a clone, or are they simply not WoW and people just want more of the same? That's certainly a question Blizzard must be asking themselves as they look at how to take WoW forwards, whether it's through a total revamp of the game or simple iterative updates and changes.
Or is it that inertia is very high when discussing MMORPGs, and that people need a really good reason to move from WoW to a newer game, and that recent entrants into the genre have not provided a sufficient incentive to cause ten million people to dump the years they've spent on WoW in favor of the next big thing.
WoW probably will have to lose a large majority of its subscriber base before another game can take its place.
John Kretzer wrote:
Since when is calling someone a bigot for their bigoted actions or words the same as using racist/homophobic/whatever stereotypes? There's no such thing as the sin of accurately labeling someone.
I'm not throwing him into a group and then judging him based on perceptions of that group. I'm trying to expose his rationale, and use that underlying rationale to ridicule his position.
He is demanding justification for things that require no justification, so instead of providing him with the justification he claims to want (which, mind you, plenty of people have given him already), I'm more interested in finding out why he is demanding justification for something that doesn't require justification. I think that's far more interesting, because it gets to the heart of why he cared enough to question it in the first place.
So calm down.
John Kretzer wrote:
Haha, I won't deny that this is a possibility, but a slim one. If the Democratic party really were full of expert shadow manipulators, we'd be a lot better at avoiding that whole snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory thing that Democrats are known for.
I doubt very much that he'd like those either.
GM Elton wrote:
On the contrary, the two MMORPGs have been around for roughly the same time period (EVE for just 18 months longer) and it's certainly worthwhile to look at why one of them is going up and up and the other is going down. The underlying issue of long-term popularity is the same for both of them, and CCP appear to have cracked it whilst Blizzard are suffering (relatively). You can't just say, "WoW is 8.5 years old and has just had its day," when other MMORPGs have lasted longer and maintained interest.
The fact that a thin handful of games have lasted that long while maintaining a highly profitable player base doesn't mean much. The fact that none of them have come anywhere near WoW's subscriber base says a lot. Besides, it's abundantly clear that millions of people believe that WoW still holds their interest (as noted, most of the lost subscriptions were non-Western).
I don't see a crisis looming for WoW. And I certainly don't see a dramatic shift in what the majority of MMO gamers are looking for. I think most of those millions of WoW-subscribing gamers want a natural, modern progression of the sort of game they've been playing for the better part of a decade.
There are quite a few other countries which rank higher on various freedom indices than the United States, and have for quite some time. I doubt you'd be interested in living in them, though. They tend to be the sorts of places that get characterized as "socialist paradises" by conservatives.
pres man wrote:
Also as pointed out there are plenty of AstroTurf organizations that are mouthpieces of the Democratic Party.
Psh, if only. The Democratic party is actually really great at amassing real grassroots support, but is much less proficient (or, perhaps more accurately, less well-equipped) at manufacturing support out of thin air. As BNW points out, the Democratic party doesn't have anywhere near the level of behind-the-curtain string-pulling going on. Democrats are still learning the ropes of effective astroturfing. Republicans, on the other hand, wrote the textbook.
I think it's interesting that WoW is shedding players - maybe not catastrophically so, but it's still happening - after eight and a half years on sale when EVE ONLINE is still attracting new ones and going from strength to strength after exactly ten years on sale.
EVE just cracked 500,000 subscribers recently. They're doing fine, but it seems silly to look at that and say, "Oh, that must be where the market is," when more than double that number just left WoW - and that latter group is likely to be receptive to a new, high-quality "theme-park" MMO experience.
If you take "free speech issue" to mean "anything that restricts any speech in any way whatsoever", then yes, absolutely.
However, that has very little relevance to our modern world. The reality is that preventing the spread of defense-related information to foreign entities has curtailed certain forms of speech for quite some time, and that this situation (the 3D printing matter) doesn't remove any speech protections - rather, it just clarifies that making a gun with a 3D printing system is just like making any other gun, and that because of this, it falls under ITAR.
This isn't a free speech issue, because we never had the freedom to share defense-related information with foreign entities. This is a security issue.
How is this not a free speech issue?
For the same reason (but to a far less extreme degree) that the provision of United States nuclear weapons secrets to a foreign power isn't a free speech issue. The country has a vested security interest in maintaining a tight control over what defense-related information it makes available for foreign consumption. While these weapons in particular are no significant threat, I see two primary concerns:
1) That the distribution of this information might facilitate or encourage foreign-aligned individuals to create their own designs for more advanced 3D-printed weapons, or
2) That 3D printed weapons may eventually become sophisticated enough to rival modern manufactured weaponry, and that making it clear that sharing this type of information in an uncontrolled fashion violates ITAR is simply sound policy.