Torval

About

Username
Torval
Joined
Visits
5,486
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
9,587
Rank
Legendary
Favorite Role
Support
Currently Playing
Elder Scrolls Online
Posts
14,997
Badges
51
  • Which pen and paper roleplaying game would you like to see as a MMORPG?

    Traveller of some sort maybe. I read it was getting a rule set refresh.
    SirAgravainePhry
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Horusra said:
    Horusra said:
    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quite false so stop spewing nonsense. All Net Neutrality requires is treating all data of a single kind the same way. This does not cost "too much up front" nor does Title II regulations. You are literally buying into shit the ISPs are saying hook line and sinker and you don't seem to grasp that the reason it is expensive has nothing to do with regulation from the federal government under title II or title I and everything to do with local permits, costs to run fiber, equipment costs etc and that's a lot of what it is. Title II won't help bring down costs, title I won't help bring down costs, a full repeal won't help bring down costs, nor will deregulation at the federal level bring down costs. 

    You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it. 

    These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting. 

    Like your propaganda you are spewing is truth.  For a new company they have to be able to keep up the speeds to everyone.  Take your crap and peddle it to the noob masses.
    Do you have proof of your claim that it stifles new competition? Because I have gigabit fiber to the house (no last mile copper) from our local county ISP, Douglas Fastnet (DFN).

    Under net neutrality that flourished. Our previous options were CenturyLink DSL capped at 10Mbps bundled with a phone package (required) for about $120/mo. Satellite, or Verizon hotspot (expensive with low data caps). Gigabit fiber is $90/mo, but they offer other packages and services including DSL and wireless internet starting at $40. In my locale, that is a good price.

    Net neutrality hasn't stifled that growth. In that ecosystem I had good internet, finally at a reasonable price. Now we're rocking the boat to throw yet another bone to the big telecoms. The internet is an essential service in a modern society. We should be making small thoughtful changes to a flawed system not ripping it all out with no replacement because some baboons want to reform systems in their interest. It works now and it's not broken.
    Asm0deusKrematory
  • Is Blizzard's hearthstone the next controversy for cash shop gambling?

    mgilbrtsn said:
    This community really isn't happy unless there is a controversy.  This cycle, it's loot boxes/gambling.  During another cycle it was microtranactions and how they are designed to fleece the unsuspecting.  During yet another cycle it was crowdfunding...and the beat goes on.  All of which called for prosecutions and punishments.

    The community won't be happy until they get AAA quality for free.  At which point there won't be any controversies  because there won't be any games.
    In another thread a long time poster here went on a long emotional diatribe how Bungie are greedy bastards for selling DLC xpacs. This same poster also went off on a vitriolic tirade about BF2 selling loot crates instead of DLC.

    Between freeloading moochers and people who just want to burn the world there is no peace. Self-entitled people want to spread their hate everywhere. It's sick and exhausting.
    waynejr2mgilbrtsn
  • Will Competitive Gaming Take Away Our Single Player Fun? - Garrett Fuller - MMORPG.com

    If EA and "games as a service" companies comprise your entire gaming world, then yeah, your single player days are screwed.

    I'm not concerned in the least because gamers will always make games for other gamers. It's what gamers do. If you want to find them then they're available.

    Maybe what we're experiencing now is a sort of industry "crash" but it's not financial, rather it's undergoing a transformation and fragmentation. AAA gaming might lose a lot of its single player steam. Those games cost millions, tens of millions, or more to produce and market. People with that money to loan, want the best return on investment possible. It is logical to see that games would evolve towards making that efficient.

    On the other hand many smaller publishers and studios, along with actual indies are doing games that aren't necessarily focused on that. Sometimes people create art and music because it's something that must be done. Some games are created this way too, always have been, and always will be.
    SBFordblueturtle13Sovrathbartoni33BeezerbeezrojoArcueidimmodium
  • MMORPG.com : General : Hawaii's Chris Lee: 'Step Up' to Changing Predatory Gaming Practices

    CrazKanuk said:
     The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.

    I agree, the idea is novel and seems achievable. However, how do you implement it considering you don't have a person present on account registration. How do you enforce it? Who is responsible if they are gaming, since it's under your roof? Remember that there are plenty of slots apps out there already. 

    Again, I don't think it's about whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it provides enough VALUE to justify being done over some other solution. 
    Our solution of "not buying" is still viable. Inform people, just like food boxes, and let us make our own decisions.

    People have equated my stance to supporting loot crates. To the contrary, not at all. My position is that the grass isn't greener, the environment we have is acceptable, and consumer purchase power has the ability to correct it. What we need is better information and disclosure about costs and reward rates from every aspect.
    MadFrenchieCrazKanukRexKushman