Last Active
Favorite Role
Currently Playing
Elder Scrolls Online
  • Chadd 'Celestalon' Nervig Moving to New Azerothian Digs at Hearthstone - World of Warcraft

    SBFord said:
    Meh...shit happens. It's Friday after 5, been up since 1 am. At least "her" was spelled right. :persevere:

    That said, I have to admit I'm not sorry to see him go. Class design in Legion is some of the worst ever. Hopefully, they can right the ship the nearly capsized.
    I got a little confused at first, but I figured it was a new sort of gender friendly approach to grammar or something. With the insanity of the last year all bets are off. :lol:

    This week has been brutal for me. I just realized I have 8GB of RAM on my desk for the last 2 days that my friends gave me. Why haven't I popped that in yet?
  • Bethesda & Lynda Carter Throw Shade at Other Publishers & Vow to #SavePlayer1 - Elder Scrolls Online

    Sovrath said:
    kitarad said:
    I know why guys like her but as a girl I was very impressed by Wonder Woman's strength. 
    I'm sure I was impressed by her strength as well. I like women who aren't wishy washy.

    Having said that, as an adult and as someone who started re-watching the old series prior to the movie, she shouldn't turn her back on the enemy when they all agree to walk down the stairs to check out the basement.

    I was literally yelling at the TV.
    As a young boy it was the asskicking, bullet deflecting bracelets, rope of truth, and an INVISIBLE JET! She made the 6 million dollar man look like a flabby sweaty middle aged man in a ugly leisure suit. Oh wait. :lol:
  • Destiny 2 - Our Curse of Osiris Review -

    Torval said:
    Guys, it's OK to not like Destiny 2. But it's ALSO OK to like it a lot.
    No one said they didn't like it.

    Liking something doesn't mean you automatically ignore it's faults, especially when it comes to the business model.
    So you like shallow offerings that are of low value and hardly worth the money. I'll be sure to remember that when you comment highly about a game, that your standards aren't very high.

    If you have an actual criticism then you'd have a lot more to stand on. Thoughtless grandstanding isn't criticism.
    Ah, another feeble attempt at trying to twist words or pull things out of context from Torval. 

    I like Destiny 2's gameplay, I wish the expansion was better, longer and offered more. I'm criticising the expansion, not Destiny 2.

    This review is for the expansion right? It's not just a "How much do we like Destiny? 8/10" article, is it?

    You see, I'm confused here. I look at something like Path of Fire that offers hundreds of hours of actual content, new features, multiple maps, new class builds, hundred of new items, etc. and I just laugh at this kind of thing. I mean, what is standard for comparison here? What is the 8/10 being compared to?

    You're clearly a Destiny fan, surely you wish this expansion had at least five times the content. What they've released is a poor effort that didn't require a lot of development resources. We deserve better.
    No, another say what you mean "bullshit detector" post from Torval. If you say things like "it's crap, but hey I never said I didn't like it", then yeah, I'm calling that. It's called backpedalling.

    Do you really want to compare an MMO with a pay to win cash shop and RMT game cash conversion with a mutliplayer shooter that costs $90? You're either paying to boost that progression in GW2 or you're grinding your way through it Battle Front 2 style. Either way, it's a very different game and environment.

    To answer your question, the game cost me $90 total since I bought the base and pass together as a bundle. I have 70 hours in the base game. I don't have to buy inventory, storage, unlocks, a subscription, or anything like that. I can solo or group to my hearts content on a single progression path. Compared to the time sink money hole that is most any traditional MMO, this is a good deal for me.
  • Bethesda & Lynda Carter Throw Shade at Other Publishers & Vow to #SavePlayer1 - Elder Scrolls Online

    SBFord said:
    People should have a better sense of humor on a Friday morning. :D
    Gamers are too busy looking for an opening to play the victim card to have a sense of humor.

    I don't have one because I'm an old mean guy. :lol:
  • : General : Hawaii's Chris Lee: 'Step Up' to Changing Predatory Gaming Practices

    CrazKanuk said:
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    kitarad said:
    Does it have to be real to have value. Bitcoin ?

    This is actually a great example because it doesn't. It has a commonly accepted value at this moment in time, but consider Steam is dropping it due to escalating fees and bitcoin volatility, I think it illustrates how value can change drastically, quickly for virtual items. A virtual item will carry some sort of value as long as it's transferable. There are plenty of black market sites selling WoW items, for instance. However, selling an original WoW item to someone today would get you MUCH less money that it would have 10 years ago, because there is simply better stuff available. So virtual items CAN have value, but it's subjective and isn't commonly accepted. 
    Virtual "items" don't have explicit inherent value. That is the different between a personal good, real property, and virtual goods. Personal goods are physical but not considered "real property"d and are taxed differently.

    Real property in the US is essentially real estate and has different laws, rights, responsibilities, and taxes associated with it. And even though deeds of ownership exist they are more like permanent leases as the government has loopholes to take the land if you don't comply (eg: pay your property taxes).

    Virtual good only have value when they're explicitly assigned value like Superman's example. If the bitcoin markets closed tomorrow then all the "bitcoins" would have no value. If all the gold markets closed tomorrow, gold would still have value. Like you said, virtual goods can have value, but even some of those that do don't have an inherent value.

    In the US this is why coupons have a value of some crazy small number like .01 cent because this way they can't be considered a currency or an item of value and taxed or regulated accordingly. The government has specifically left loopholes in that system for business to operate outside of those fees and regulations imposed on high value item transactions.

    Of course this all varies state by state as do gambling laws. This is why some states are always excluded from giveaways like McDonald's Monopoly or the Elder Scrolls Online prize events.

    Maybe in states with draconian regulation some game services won't be legally offered. Maybe it will affect all regions and games will be designed and monetized totally differently and we'll all have to deal with those changes. We don't actually know the consequences of these changes will be. Some people naively think they'll just go away and we'll return to some earlier design and monetization trope. That won't happen.

    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    The question and issue really comes down to what this is about. Is this really about saving the children? If so then data driven problem solving should be engaged.

    My spidey sense tells me this is more about cheap greedy gamers that don't want to pay what it costs to game.

    I find it hard to believe that gamers who are incredibly selfish want to suddenly save the children from gambling. They haven't established there is any real threat. They have established they don't like paying much for games and they don't like it when people can buy their way past what they feel they've "worked" for. So I'm not buying the benevolence angle from gamers. They've not shown a real concern yet.

    I'm not buying that angle from the politicians either. This is a political grandstanding ploy to grab attention for a state that's otherwise often ignored. If this politician was a gamer, then he wouldn't have discovered this on reddit and would have already been pursuing action. But his epiphany came from reading Reddit and see political potential in soapboxing with an volatile angry mob looking for someone to spearhead their cause. It's political gold.

    Where has the damage been done that we need government regulation to protect us? Protect us from what, the potential that maybe we could possibly be hurt under a specific set of imaginary circumstances? We don't care about the number of gun death and doing something about that, but we're very concerned that some eSports gamers might have to pay a lot.

    If this were a thing that could and was hurting people then it should deserve attention. But none of that has been established but we're treating it like serious crimes that do hurt people.