The rest in Gellman's article is indeed noteworthy, but we've already seen the result. So why should the government be allowed to survey the public without its consent?
That's all that matters. This Weapon of Mass Distraction is not answering the question and it's atrocious for actual intelligent discourse.
So let's repeat the question one more time for the NSA...
Why are you spying on Americans without their consent?
Yes, I already know the answer to that, but it should be repeated until they answer the question laid out, not the one they want. This is a public relations nightmare, as it should be. The propaganda doesn't work. The truth will. Anything less is insulting.
There's something that I've had to keep wondering in regards to these games...
Who's paying for this legislation?
Let's stop vilifying the government for five seconds to realize what's going on...
There's a slew of private interests that seem to be interested in regulating games far more than movies or music. That's the problem that I have here. The government reflects whoever is paying them and here, there's a strong suggestion of a coalition of movie and retail interests which make games far more expensive, particularly in the digital realm where it makes no sense.
I'd also say that publishers make a lot more money off of the games, which prompts some really crazy taxes on such income.
I bet if we dig deeper, we could find out where those interests lie and how they will try to legislate.
This seems to go in a line of Microsoft trying to attempt corporate sabotage of either a competitor or smaller business.
Seriously, how long has it been since their last goof up of epic proportions where they will raid people's emails for things they want?
This falls in line with that exact view of the world. Next thing you know, they're going to announce their own private army of Pinkertons made up of retired law enforcement agents who will fight cybercrime.
Yes, I'm going to toot on the Valve horn. Yes, this is going to be extremely biased. For all the haters, Deal with it...
Nexon going after their biggest fans is stupid firstly. Criminalizing people for cheating is not going to stop the cheating and keeps them deprived of how people are cheating.
This also makes Blizzard a bad investment for security because they do the exact same thing in terms of copyright law.
But here's a story that actually occurred. A few years ago, Valve had someone that was heavily invested in figuring out how Valve ticked. And he did it twice. Instead of jailing them (I'd like to think that Valve learned from that...) they gave him a job.
And that job helps enrich the community and add value to it.
The point here is simple. Criminalizing your patrons is a fool's errand. Hiring the kids to help you spot bugs will be far more advantageous if someone actually understands how to make their company grow and prosper.
I won't touch on how utterly hurt you seem to be by a group of people with a differing opinion.
I'm not but thanks for your vilification of my arguments.
Instead I'll just laugh at how hard you're working to shut down a minority's conversation.
How very privileged of you.
It's funny that you claim that the 48% number is unreliable, yet you link directly to a study that you say is more reliable that is literally one percent less than the one you claim isn't trustworthy.
The ESA has methodology issues that have been around since 1993. The private market research is not available for scrutiny and people are using it for misleading purposes. I've already read the information for a number of years and came to my own conclusions. What have you done besides try to censor someone else's opinion?
You are maddeningly inconsistent.
No, I'm just pointing out that the research for ESA is maddeningly inconsistent and look at more than the final numbers such as how they got them and what games people played. For 2014, that was not even up for discussion from the NPD, who gave the ESA their numbers. Maybe doing actual study into this stuff from Joe Karaganis and/or Mike Masnick would help, but I would rather enjoy that than constantly have to hear about the ESA's numbers which don't say much about what games people play or even notice a disparity in genres that people split up into.
When it comes time to make a decision about cutting, who gets cut?
Possibly the entire team or the game is pushed out prematurely compared to how Valve only releases a game when it's done. Stop insinuating some bizarre discrimination that only works in your head.
That's the cultural sexism (and other factors) that make White Heterosexual Male the Default Mode.
Congratulations on your Anti-white rhetoric.
No one has to actively promote it to be a problem, but the inevitable endless denial (with mostly bad arguments) every time it is mentioned is a damned good indicator of what the problem really is.
You make these inane arguments with troll logic then can't even defend them while accusing others of being sexist. How the hell does that even sound like an argument for the betterment of game development?
Sure, the Invisible Hand of the Market™ will eventually market games (hopefully in good faith) directly aimed at women--
Bullshit. The market doesn't care if a man or a woman buys a game. How about showing evidence of what women play and prefer? Something like Iunno... The Sims, Civilization series? Games like Counterstrike?
Maybe if someone did some facts about females... Oh wait...
But it is going to continue to be stupid and ugly until they figure it out.
What kind of crap are you talking about? Ubisoft has been around for decades and games have been around for over 50 years give or take. Obviously, people play games they prefer. That's some serious BS... You don't know what you're talking about and trying to blame an industry for making games you don't like. Maybe you should keep that to yourself.
Which is kind of sad, since the gaming industry has a lot going for it in terms of creativity and entertainment value.
And it continues to do so without some crazy moral guardians trying to censor games they don't like for a subjective standard akin to Jack Thompson hoping games to eliminate violence. Ridiculous...
Now there is seriously some context missing here. First, Watch Dogs was already delayed and gamers went nuts. That was not an option for this yearly game.
So the budget comes up and things get cut. The female models, which are not up to snuff, are cut. Hilarity ensues as people complain about that when it's not the major issue.
And no, Far Cry has nothing to do with this. That's way too sensational and the last I checked, people were angry at the main villain of FC4 for being evil and (allegedly) white.
Let that sink in.
Now to the numbers.
The ESA is misleading and has NO methodology to the most recent numbers. I've tried to check up on those. Do I believe that women are a part of the gaming industry? Yes. But I don't trust the 48% number. The Australian Government's numbers are far better. Focusing on families and transparency work far better than a gender divide.
Imagine what an even deeper slight to the woman gamer will cause.
There's been plenty of games for women but they are games like otome, construction, and even the occasional Counter Strike games. Obviously, 48% being utilized at all means that women already play games. The question is what they play.
I see far more sensationalism from Polygon on this issue than actual looks into what women prefer to play versus men.
This union isn't representing its smaller people. I feel that this union sentiment is a little misplaced. Who funds the unions? If we're taking "follow the money" approach, I believe the ideas are coming from the music industry and the possibly the movie industry to attack a younger entertainment medium.
I don't doubt that some of this is the union being out of touch, but I don't think the information is updated to assess the entire problem. Who find the unions should be the first question and then we can get to a solution for the composers besides no work at all.
It may be a win for them, but it's inherently undemocratic.
Such a model works as a "free market". The ones that can afford it get the premium services while those outside of the market are outside of caring about. This type of division was very much against even Plato and Aristotle who hated the division that was caused by caring for money over any other form of social contract.
The internet, for all purposes here, is a commons. Something that can't be divided up and metered out for exploitative gains by a private enterprise. This runs counter to how the internet works in allowing for options and choices instead of monopolization.
This is setting up a very dangerous game for the ISPs. They've banned local competition, while charging their customers higher prices who will be very keen to push them out of their areas as time goes by. That basically means that eventually the public will either create alternatives on the local level or they'll push for something that will force the companies to compete.
Things like WiscNet were great alternatives and may work in a number of states. Let's hope that more people recognize that local broadband does far more to damage the major monopolies while allowing for better service.
So it's obvious what's going on here. Anytime you go against those in power, expect vilification.
When in doubt, vilify your offenders.
Vilify anyone supporting them. Don't think logically, destroy your opponent through baseless rhetoric until nothing is left. The idea that someone is a traitor gives it power and the Public Relations campaign must continue even in the face of truth.